Are we (mormons) hypocrites?

[Guest saintish]

"There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together." -Gordon B. Hinckley “What Are People Asking about Us?,” Ensign, Nov 1998, 70

LDS.org - Ensign Article - What Are People Asking about Us?

"There are a number of arguments used supposedly to “prove” that we are not Christian. It is important to recognize that none of them have anything to do with whether or not Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ. Rather, what they basically boil down to is this: Latter-day Saints are different from the other Christian churches. (We understand that these differences exist because traditional Christianity has wandered from the truth over the centuries, but other denominations see things otherwise.)" -Stephen E. Robinson

Are Mormons Christians? - New Era May 1998

Given these two quotes, are we hypocrites for denying Fundamentalists the title "mormon" when we also fight with the larger denominations for the title "christian"?

[prisonchaplain]

If "Mormon" or "Latter-Day Saint" were a denominational title, then I'd say you were safe. Where you might be hypocritical is if you denied the fundamentalists the title "Christian." On the other hand, since only Mormons are in the fullness of the Gospel, and only you have the authority of the Restoration, perhaps there is something to this perceived inconsistency.

On the other hand, since you (LDS) and they (FLDS) accept that there can be only one God-ordained church leadership, I'd suggest that the charge of hypocrisy is too strong. This is a matter that I, an an evangelical, can bring up if I want to be cute--but I don't see anyone converting or deconverting over the matter.

[Vort]

Given these two quotes, are we hypocrites for denying Fundamentalists the title "mormon" when we also fight with the larger denominations for the title "christian"?

How is it hypocritical?

[Delanie]

I see Mormon as a nickname. And to me able to be given to all sorts of Mormonish religions.

So it might be hypocritical, if that's what you meant.

[Guest saintish]

@PC: thanks, you veiw of the matter as a non-LDS is especially interesting. If i understand you correctly, you are saying that because mormon is generally considered the title for the LDS denomination, mormon does not apply to FLDS (et all)

@ vort: do you not see the similarities between LDS distancing themselves from fundamentalists and Mainstream Christianity wanting to distance itself from LDS?

Personally I dont have a problem with fundamentalist considering themselves Mormon so long as it is clear that they are not the same as LDS. why should we deny them the heritage of crossing the plains and believing in the book of Mormon and many of the same Prophets (even if some of there interpretations are a bit skewed)

[prisonchaplain]

How is it hypocritical?

The appearance of hypocrisy that the OP points out is that LDS insist on being called Christians, but want to deny that the FLDS are true Mormons. The implication is that perhaps everyone should be allowed to claim whatever label they want, without outside interference?

I do not necessarily agree that this is hypocrisy, but it's not hard to see why the question is raised.

[Vort]

@vort: do you not see the similarities between LDS distancing themselves from fundamentalists and Mainstream Christianity wanting to distance itself from LDS?

Certainly. I'm just not sure why you consider it to be hypocritical.

[Suzie]

are we hypocrites for denying Fundamentalists the title "mormon" when we also fight with the larger denominations for the title "christian"?

Not sure if we are hypocrites. However, I don't agree with trying to stop others from calling themselves "Fundamentalist Mormons" if they wish to do.

11We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[Guest saintish]

@ vort: its hypocritical because we are not considered christian by some because of our beliefs on certian issues and yet we wont consider fundamentalists mormon because of their beliefs on certian issues, at the same time we (LDS) profess to be christian and they (Fundamaentalist) profess to be mormon. I'm not sure i can spell it out any more clearly. where do you see a disconnect?

[Vort]

@ vort: its hypocritical because we are not considered christian by some because of our beliefs on certian issues and yet we wont consider fundamentalists mormon because of their beliefs on certian issues, at the same time we (LDS) profess to be christian and they (Fundamaentalist) profess to be mormon. I'm not sure i can spell it out any more clearly. where do you see a disconnect?

"Hypocrisy" means putting on a false face; that is, pretending to be something that one most definitely is not. In what way is the Church putting on a false face?

[Guest saintish]

"Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have."

In other word, we claim that we are entitled to be called christians because of X,Y, and Z, yet we deny fundamentalist the title "mormon" for similar reasons that Christians deny us the title Christian. Its a double standard, which is a form of hypocracy. i.e. not appling the same standard equally.

[Vort]

"Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have."

In other word, we claim that we are entitled to be called christians because of X,Y, and Z, yet we deny fundamentalist the title "mormon" for similar reasons that Christians deny us the title Christian.

This is false. As far as I know, the Church never told any splinter groups that they were not allowed to claim the title "Mormon". Rather, the Church told the media that their [the media's] sensational headlines and stories talking about "Mormon polygamists" were misleading, and that the polygamists weren't Mormon. So far as I know, no polygamist group has ever called itself "Mormon"; that term has pretty much been reserved for members of the LDS Church. Do you know differently?

Its a double standard, which is a form of hypocracy. i.e. not appling the same standard equally.

A double standard per se is not hypocrisy. In any case, I don't believe the Church is guilty of using a double standard in this case. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

[NeuroTypical]

Given these two quotes, are we hypocrites for denying Fundamentalists the title "mormon" when we also fight with the larger denominations for the title "christian"?

Who's 'we' - you got a bird in your pocket? I don't fight with anybody.

I just claim the title Christian in the face of people saying it doesn't fit. If someone else wants the title Mormon, I can say it doesn't fit without being a hypocrite.

LM

[prisonchaplain]

I'll simply repeat that saintish points out what some outsiders might perceive to be a mild "hypocrisy" or inconsistency. On the other hand, perhaps this is becoming a non-issue, since the leadership is vearing away from the term "Mormon," preferring the official title of the Church? Even I have gotten into the habit of referring to y'all as "LDS" rather than Mormon.

[Blackmarch]

Given these two quotes, are we hypocrites for denying Fundamentalists the title "mormon" when we also fight with the larger denominations for the title "christian"?

sometimes. Depends on the situation. Technically Mormon isn't a correct term.

We are no more mormons than we are mosiahans, nephites, Helamanites, Mosaians, Thompsons, Hinklyans, Isaiahans, etc...

We revolve around Jesus Christ, and his church is the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints... correct terms for designating us would or should be derived from those.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Traveler]

This is false. As far as I know, the Church never told any splinter groups that they were not allowed to claim the title "Mormon". Rather, the Church told the media that their [the media's] sensational headlines and stories talking about "Mormon polygamists" were misleading, and that the polygamists weren't Mormon. So far as I know, no polygamist group has ever called itself "Mormon"; that term has pretty much been reserved for members of the LDS Church. Do you know differently?

A double standard per se is not hypocrisy. In any case, I don't believe the Church is guilty of using a double standard in this case. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

There are polygamists that consider themselves very much LDS and Mormon and strive to keep their polygamy "secret". They justify even withholding information concerning polygamy even with their LDS bishop. They believe that they have special permission from the highest authorities for their actions and beliefs.

I only know this because I had a friend involved that attempted to get me involved. It ended with his excommunication and strains to our friendship - ending that also.

The Traveler

[skippy740]

I don't think this has anything to do with hypocrisy or standards.

It has everything to do with clarity in the media.

The term "Mormon" in the minds of most people are the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. When an "off-shoot" of the LDS Church refers themselves as a "Mormon _____", it confuses the media and therefore confuses the public.

As a further way to clarify exactly who we are, we have been asked by our leaders that we refer to our church as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints... not the Mormon church.

I think it's just to help with the clarity of exactly who we are and what our core values are.

[Vort]

There are polygamists that consider themselves very much LDS and Mormon and strive to keep their polygamy "secret". They justify even withholding information concerning polygamy even with their LDS bishop. They believe that they have special permission from the highest authorities for their actions and beliefs.

I only know this because I had a friend involved that attempted to get me involved. It ended with his excommunication and strains to our friendship - ending that also.

The Traveler

This is a different matter: A Latter-day Saint clandestinely pursuing a wicked lifestyle, the very definition of hypocrisy.

The Church was not referring to such people. Rather, they were differentiating the LDS Church, commonly called "Mormon", from the polygamous splinter groups in Utah that call themselves things like "Fundamentalist Church of etc." but not "Fundy Mormons". The "Mormon" label was applied to those groups by the media, not by the groups themselves. The Church was simply noting, correctly, that the term "Mormon" historically applies to the LDS Church and its members, and that by misusing the term "Mormon", the media was incorrectly leading the public to think that the lawbreaking polygamists were LDS.

There was not the least whiff of hypocrisy in the Church's actions in this matter.

[HiJolly]

I believe that off-shoots of the Mormon Church, who believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, should be identified as "Mormon". Not "LDS", not "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", but as "Mormon".

HJ

[Vort]

I believe that off-shoots of the Mormon Church, who believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, should be identified as "Mormon". Not "LDS", not "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", but as "Mormon".

As personal opinions go, that's a fine one to have. However, those organizations do not self-identify as "Mormon", and have not historically been referred to as "the Mormon Church". That distinction belongs to the LDS Church. So regardless of how one may wish that people used the language, people continue to use the language as they will. In that context, it is perfectly reasonable for the Church to call attention to the distinction and suggest that the splinter groups not be referred to as "Mormon", which serves only to confuse the issue in the minds of most of the public.

[Guest saintish]

You dont think polygamists consider themselves mormons? I'd 100% disagree in fact most of them believe they are the true "mormon" church.

[prisonchaplain]

In line with the OP then, traditional Christians might view LDS theology and practice as "an offshoot" of traditional Christianity. They might argue that using the label "Christian" for groups with such different beliefs is confusing.

Again, the term "hypocrisy" is likely too perjorative. However, there may appear to some to be a double standard, or mild inconsistency. This matter is not crucial. However, Saintish raised a legitimate point, at least for consideration.

[HiJolly]

As personal opinions go, that's a fine one to have. However, those organizations do not self-identify as "Mormon", and have not historically been referred to as "the Mormon Church". That distinction belongs to the LDS Church. So regardless of how one may wish that people used the language, people continue to use the language as they will. In that context, it is perfectly reasonable for the Church to call attention to the distinction and suggest that the splinter groups not be referred to as "Mormon", which serves only to confuse the issue in the minds of most of the public.

I know of some who do self-identify as "Mormon".

HJ

[Guest saintish]

To add to what PC said, Lets not get hung up on the word hypocrite. Is it fair for LDS to say that FLDS, fundamentalists, polygamist, etc. are not mormon and is it not similar to Christian denominations saying that we are not christian.

[prisonchaplain]

To add to what PC said, Lets not get hung up on the word hypocrite. Is it fair for LDS to say that FLDS, fundamentalists, polygamist, etc. are not mormon and is it not similar to Christian denominations saying that we are not christian.

Now, my own answer. It is similar. We (traditionalists) can say it. However, you (LDS) are perfectly right to argue the point. "We may not be trinitarians, but we follow Jesus, we are LDS Christians."

And, surely the polygamous or other off-shoot LDS will argue, "We believe in Joseph Smith and the BoM, we are too Mormons--LDS..." Then, they will add their adjective "fundamentalist" or whatever it is.

I do not see these arguments being easily resolved. The opposing sides are both reasonable and plausible. If nothing else, the controversy can be an opportunity for conversation.