Are we (mormons) hypocrites?

[Guest]

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 agree with Vort here.

It is exactly like calling yourself Catholic. When used without qualification, it usually refers to the Roman Catholic Church. So that, when the media refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church as Catholic, they would correct it saying, "we are Catholic, they are Orthodox"... although, the media usually doesn't make this mistake like they do with the term Mormon. But, the smaller Catholic Churches like the Eastern Antiochian Church refer to themselves a Catholic - but when they are referred to by the media as the Catholic Church without qualification in a context that is not valid to the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church corrects it too to add the qualification - but then, the media usually don't make this mistake either.

There is no double-standard at all there even if the Eastern Orthodox is a Catholic church - it is mainly for clarity. The Orthodox church do not label themselves as Catholics even if they are, in essence, Catholics, because they are not in communion with the Pope. But, if the Orthodox church wants to be included in the Catholic label, then some discussion might have to come out of it, because, then it means a change in boundary on what the label Catholic signifies (in communion with the See of Rome).

Therefore, if the label Christian is bounded by the Trinitarian understanding of Christ - then I completely understand how that label doesn't apply to LDS and we shouldn't identify ourselves as such. But, the term Christian is bounded by the belief that Christ is Divine, therefore, we, as LDS, claim to be Christians even if the Trinitarians don't agree.

The term Mormons is currently bounded by the membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So, if other denominations want to be included in that label, then yes, it needs to be discussed. As it stands, not only do most other offshoots of the original church founded by Joseph Smith reject the label Mormon, the LDS church itself is trying to veer away from that label as well. But until that boundary changes, the term Mormon, when used in a context contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will need to be fully qualified.

So, yeah, no hypocrisy in sight, no double-standard, nothing.

Edited May 18, 2011 by anatess

[Vort]

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

Somehow I'm not making myself clear. Not sure what other words to use. Let me try again.

• The term "Mormon" is a term invented by non-Latter-day Saints to describe Church members. (I believe "Mormonite" was more common early on, until the shorter version took over.) The religion was thus referred to as "Mormonism". This took place quite early, and by the time the Prophet was murdered, it was obviously common; see Section 135. Note that while the early Church accepted the appellation as a sort of "nickname", they never embraced it, because the Lord had given the actual name of the Church by revelation.

  Takeaway: "Mormon" was not invented by the "Mormons", and was accepted by them only as a nickname.

• Early splinter groups appeared after the Prophet's murder, e.g. the Strangites and, later, the RLDS. Like the "Brighamites" that went to Utah, these may have been referred to by others as "Mormon". They typically did not accept the appellation, wishing instead to make clear that they were not "Brighamites". The only one of these groups that survives in appreciable numbers today are the RLDS, now called the Community of Christ. I have never heard anyone refer to the Community of Christ as "Mormons", but it's possible that some do.

  Takeaway: Early splinter groups were even less fond of the term "Mormon" than the Latter-day Saints, and took special pains to distance themselves from it and the "Utah Mormons". The only major surviving offshoot group, the Community of Christ, is not (as far as I know) called "Mormon". If they were or are, I suppose they have as much claim to the term, if they want it, as does the LDS Church.

• After arriving in Utah, the early Latter-day Saints openly practiced polygamy. After a time and much threatening and persecution, the practice was abolished. It took probably a full generation for the abolition (from President Woodruff's so-called "Manifesto") to take hold, with polygamy continuing to be practiced by at least some Latter-day Saints, primarily in Mexico and Canada but also in Utah and other US-based colonies.

  Takeaway: Polygamy was practiced, then abolished, among the Utah Saints, but it took a generation for the practice to disappear from the Church.

• Some Saints decided that doing away with plural marriage (aka polygamy) was tantamount to apostasy from the revealed truth. Others (primarily men) decided that they fancied the idea of a man having more than one wife. These Saints left the Church or were excommunicated and formed their own groups, with names such as "Fundamentalist LDS Church". They did not call themselves "the Polygamous Mormon Church" or any such thing. They are breakaways, and in the minds of Latter-day Saints, apostates from the truth. They have no affiliation with the LDS Church except for the history of polygamy. Since the LDS Church is identified as the "Mormon Church", these offshoot organizations cannot be considered any part of the "Mormon Church". And since they do not self-identify as "Mormon", it is both technically incorrect and confusing to refer to them as "Mormon polygamists". They are not "Mormon polygamists"; they are members of an offshoot (apostate) organization who attempt to continue the practice of polygamy.

  Takeaway: Apostate Latter-day Saints took it upon themselves to continue the unauthorized practice of polygamy. These people either left the Church or were excommunicated, and formed their own church organizations. Those organizations were not named "Mormon", and were (and are) in no way affiliated with the so-called "Mormon Church". To refer to them as "Mormon" anything is incorrect and confusing to the public, who associate the term "Mormon" with the LDS Church.

This is why the term "Mormon polygamist" as applied to modern splinter groups is incorrect and why the Church has tried many times to clarify this issue. There is nothing in the least hypocritical about this; the Church is not attempting to deny the use of the term "Mormon" to those who wish to self-identify as such. It is not the polygamous groups who use the term "Mormon"; it is the media that uses (or misuses) the term.

If you still can't understand what I'm trying to say, I guess we'll just have to leave it at that. Unless someone else can do a better job of explaining.

[Vort]

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 have never heard any of them make any such argument. On the contrary, the more "fundamentalist" they consider themselves, the less likely they are to accept the term "Mormon".

But if they did want to self-identify as Mormons, I think they would have that right. In such a case, I doubt the Church (the LDS Church) would object to the media's misuse of the term "Mormon". Instead, the Church would probably just take pains to make the distinction clear.

The important point is: That's not the case. It's not the polygamous groups insisting on being identified as "Mormons" and the Church huffily denying them that title. Rather, it is the media insisting on misusing the label "Mormon" to describe people who manifestly are not members of "the Mormon Church", aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Guest saintish]

I understand exactly what you are saying but its not accurate.

as you stated the term mormon goes all the way back to Joseph Smith, and yes the CofC doesnt embrase the term mormon and it is there attempt to distance themselves from LDS but polygamous groups dont care about that and they very much consider themselves mormon. I would also argue that in an academic sense all religions that derived from Joseph Smith and use of the book of mormon are "mormons" google mormon and see what comes up, I promise you will find reference to CofC, strangeites, flds etc.

this is what i found:

The Mormons are a religious and cultural group related to Mormonism, a religion founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. beginning in the late 1820s. Most Mormons are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), while a minority are members of Mormon fundamentalist[1] or other independent churches. Many Mormons are also either independent or non-practicing.

now i am not arguing that the LDS church shouldnt distance itself from polygamous groups and other non-lds but to say mormon fundamentalist is a contradiction in terms might be a little much.

[Guest saintish]

I have never heard any of them make any such argument. On the contrary, the more "fundamentalist" they consider themselves, the less likely they are to accept the term "Mormon".

where did you gather that? how many fundamentalists do you know?

[Guest]

where did you gather that? how many fundamentalists do you know?

Saintish, yes you are correct here. The Fundamentatlist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints call themselves Fundamentalist Mormons. And that's what caused the dilemma. So, refer to my post above about boundaries to explain the position of the church.

Here's a direct quote to support the answer that No, the LDS Church are not hypocrites or what-have-you:

"The Church does not seek to diminish the religious prerogative of any of these polygamous groups. Rather, it simply urges the use of terminology that clarifies the true identity of each party involved. Ultimately, these groups can define themselves any way they wish as long as they don't distort the well-established identity of a long-standing church," the LDS statement said.

Full statement here:

Proportion and Perspective on Polygamy Reporting - LDS Newsroom

The Church released this statement to all media outlets after a survey came up that a big percentage of Americans did not realize Fundamentalist Mormons are not part of the LDS church.

[Vort]

now i am not arguing that the LDS church shouldnt distance itself from polygamous groups and other non-lds but to say mormon fundamentalist is a contradiction in terms might be a little much.

Please provide evidence that the Utah polygamous groups wish to be called "Mormons". If you can do that, then the issue is resolved. Otherwise, your accusations agains the Church are baseless.

[prisonchaplain]

It's not the polygamous groups insisting on being identified as "Mormons" and the Church huffily denying them that title. Rather, it is the media insisting on misusing the label "Mormon" to describe people who manifestly are not members of "the Mormon Church", aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As a chaplain and minister I can appreciate the nuances of history, and the importance of the various terms. To most non-LDS, especially secular media, "Mormon" encompasses anyone who identifies with the BoM, or Joseph Smith. Likewise, anyone identifying with Christ would be considered Christian in their view.

So from that broad perspective, claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only organization qualifying as "the Mormon Church" would be similar to traditionalist Christians claiming that only trinitarians qualify as members "the Christian church."

The key phrase "would be similar" is my way of saying that sure, upon explanation, those with the patience to hear you out will see that there are differences, and that your claim that polygamous are not members of the legimitate "Mormon Church" is one matter, and saying you are Christian because you are devoted to Christ is another. BUT, can you not at least see that, at first glance, outsiders will see some discrepancy?

[Guest saintish]

"The Church does not seek to diminish the religious prerogative of any of these polygamous groups. Rather, it simply urges the use of terminology that clarifies the true identity of each party involved. Ultimately, these groups can define themselves any way they wish as long as they don't distort the well-established identity of a long-standing church," the LDS statement said."

and my point is that a christian church could use this same language aginst us

ex: The Church does not seek to diminish the religious prerogative of any of these mormon groups. Rather, it simply urges the use of terminology that clarifies the true identity of each party involved. Ultimately, these groups (mormons) can define themselves any way they wish as long as they don't distort the well-established identity of a long-standing (christian) church," the Christian statement said.

[Guest]

"The Church does not seek to diminish the religious prerogative of any of these polygamous groups. Rather, it simply urges the use of terminology that clarifies the true identity of each party involved. Ultimately, these groups can define themselves any way they wish as long as they don't distort the well-established identity of a long-standing church," the LDS statement said."

and my point is that a christian church could use this same language aginst us

ex: The Church does not seek to diminish the religious prerogative of any of these mormon groups. Rather, it simply urges the use of terminology that clarifies the true identity of each party involved. Ultimately, these groups (mormons) can define themselves any way they wish as long as they don't distort the well-established identity of a long-standing (christian) church," the Christian statement said.

Sure. Except that when you are using the term Christian - it has a different boundary. Can you please read my previous post???

[Guest saintish]

I read it i just disagree with how you define the boundaries. I believe the the FLDS, and even CofC is within the bounds of the term Mormon even if in the case of the CofC (or in our own case for that matter) it is not used or discouraged, which is NOT the case with the FLDS.

[prisonchaplain]

Therefore, if the label Christian is bounded by the Trinitarian understanding of Christ - then I completely understand how that label doesn't apply to LDS and we shouldn't identify ourselves as such. But, the term Christian is bounded by the belief that Christ is Divine, therefore, we, as LDS, claim to be Christians even if the Trinitarians don't agree.

Says who? I do not mean the question to be flippant. It is serious. Who decides what makes a Christian Christian? Further, exactly what qualifies a church as being Christian? Most Christian denominations--a super majority that would pass vote in election other than one requiring unanimity--trinitarian belief is a core underpinning. The major cooperative assocations are also trinitarian (National and World Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, and, of course, the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Anglican Communion, etc.).

Jehovah's Witnesses recognize this, and have given a somewhat negatively nuanced label to this reality--CHRISTENDOM. Nevertheless, they would say they are Christians, because they are "Christ-like." They would point out that the meaning of "Christian" is "Christlike." Yet, they deny the divinity of Christ.

So, who says that the Trinity is not a fair marker of what makes a Christian, but believing Christ is divine would be? This is the very dilemma that makes this a discussion that is hard to close, convincingly. We do not recognize each other's authority to make the definition.

The term Mormons is currently bounded by the membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So, if other denominations want to be included in that label, then yes, it needs to be discussed. As it stands, not only do most other offshoots of the original church founded by Joseph Smith reject the label Mormon, the LDS church itself is trying to veer away from that label as well. But until that boundary changes, the term Mormon, when used in a context contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will need to be fully qualified.

So, yeah, no hypocrisy in sight, no double-standard, nothing.

But again, who decided that the boundary was with your church? Another posted pointed out that some off-shoots insist they are the true Mormon church...though they might not insist on the term. You do not recognize their authority, but they do not recognize yours.

So, I again suggest that saintish is at least correct in pointing out that outsiders can perceive a double standard.

[Guest]

I read it i just disagree with how you define the boundaries. I believe the the FLDS, and even CofC is within the bounds of the term Mormon even if in the case of the CofC (or in our own case for that matter) it is not used or discouraged, which is NOT the case with the FLDS.

Says who? I do not mean the question to be flippant. It is serious. Who decides what makes a Christian Christian? Further, exactly what qualifies a church as being Christian?

I did not define the boundaries. Yeah, says who? Says the common understanding.

Who says Catholic refers to Roman Catholic? Who says the "N" word or "oriental" or whatever is pejorative word? Who says "biscuit" means bread and not crackers?

Because, if you ask a Filipino, a biscuit is a cracker. But, a Filipino can say until he is blue "biscuit" to indicate Ritz and not a single American will understand what he means unless he lived for a time in the Philippines.

The understanding of Mormon refering to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is so prevalent that the name Mormon is trademarked by the Church in several countries including the Philippines.

The understanding of Christian does not mean Trinitarian... obviously, because Christian was there before the concept of the Trinity became an official declaration.

[prisonchaplain]

Ironically, by your example, you show that different groups have different understandings. I'd simply suggest that therein lies the discussion. We all assume, but our assumptions are not the same.

[LDSJewess]

I don't think any of the above are hypotcritical.

Mormon's aka The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints went through many changes from time of Joseph Smith to current day. Polygamy was once practiced and later changed. Blacks could not hold the ksys to the priesthood, and that later changed. Life in general changes and that is a natural course of things. When Heavenly Father revealed a new revelation to the Prophet, then a change was made according to what Heavenly Father felt was appropriate for the time.

Jews of the days of Abraham, Issac and Jacob had concubines (maid servants or mistresses if you will that bore children for them). That too has obviously changed long ago and not a part of modern day life.

Today Jews practice their religion through a number of movements aka Orthodox. Chassidic, Chabad, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, secular Humanism and yes even Messianic, (believers in the savior who do not consider thwemselves "Christian" rather "Messianic Jews").

Christians too changed and continue to from warly Catholicism, (Greek and Roman), to Anglican (not recognizing the Pope as authority), Lutheran (first protestant reformation), and all the denominations since then.

Each sect of course argues the truth and correctness of their religion, and the movements that stemmed from the original religion/s then call the others hypocrits.

I think Heavenly Father will ultimately make the decision on what is right for his children in their time on this earth. Perhaps that is another good reason to have a living prophet with us on earth now so that revelations can be received that are "relevant" to those living on the earth now and we can have a better understanding of Heaveny Fathers plan.

Aren't we all glad we don't have to figure all this stuff out on our own?

As for "fundamentalism" within the LDS church, I have found (in my own experiences of course), that people seem to be more fundamentalist if they come from a more fundamentalist Christian background, and those that did not or were born into the church are much less so. I see this as frame of reference of the individual rather than the stand of the Church itself. We have to keep in mind that members of the LDS church are made up of more converts (thanks to the amazing and hard work of the missionaries). So naturally a vast amount of members who are converts bring with them some of their thinking and ideas from their upbringing and the churches they once belonged to.

Edited May 18, 2011 by LDSJewess

[Guest]

Ironically, by your example, you show that different groups have different understandings. I'd simply suggest that therein lies the discussion. We all assume, but our assumptions are not the same.

Yes yes yes, but there is a minority of Filipinos in America but a majority of Americans. So biscuit is that bread thingee you get when you order a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken, not Ritz. So, if somebody in the media would say, "how odd that the Fundamentalists put cheese and jalapenos on their biscuit", you could have a group of people sending in corrections to use crackers, even if Filipinos understood exactly what he was saying.

Know what I mean, jelly bean?

So that, when a survey done shows that majority of Americans think the LDS Church are polygamists because... hey, look at that Warren Jeffs dude... you can be sure the Church is going to do something to claim that word (which they tried to do back in 2002 - applying to trademark the word Mormon, which, unfortunately, did not pass because of some reason or another) until such a time that they can get rid of that stigma.

[outcast]

To be a hypocrite you must simply say you are one thing and DO another.

A Catholic can be a hypocrite just as well as a JEW.

Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites for their actions because they went against what they taught.

So to NOT be a hypocrite you must simply DO what you teach and believe.

Even atheist can be hypocrites. It's an individual title. No previous experience necessary.

[bcguy]

I have met a few. I almost left the church because of them. But realized its there problem not mine. I would not mind chewing strait some of them. After all, that all I experienced in the military.

[prisonchaplain]

Yes yes yes, but there is a minority of Filipinos in America but a majority of Americans. So biscuit is that bread thingee you get when you order a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken, not Ritz. So, if somebody in the media would say, "how odd that the Fundamentalists put cheese and jalapenos on their biscuit", you could have a group of people sending in corrections to use crackers, even if Filipinos understood exactly what he was saying.

Know what I mean, jelly bean?

Your last line strikes me as hilarious, somehow...the kinda thing momma says to her four-year old, but quite appropriate in a discussion about Mormons and Polygamists and Trinitarians.

So that, when a survey done shows that majority of Americans think the LDS Church are polygamists because... hey, look at that Warren Jeffs dude... you can be sure the Church is going to do something to claim that word (which they tried to do back in 2002 - applying to trademark the word Mormon, which, unfortunately, did not pass because of some reason or another) until such a time that they can get rid of that stigma.

If you are arguing that majority rules, and public perception reigns, then your church gets to use "The Mormon Church" monicar, and Trinitarians get to use "The Christian Church." No matter how you slice the jalepenos and put them on the biscuits, if you insist that only your church should be considered The Mormon one, but that you have as much claim to "Christian Church" as Trinitarians do...it's gonna look like a double standard. You can explain it to those willing to listen...but the surface level appearance is discrepancy.

[Guest]

Your last line strikes me as hilarious, somehow...the kinda thing momma says to her four-year old, but quite appropriate in a discussion about Mormons and Polygamists and Trinitarians.

If you are arguing that majority rules, and public perception reigns, then your church gets to use "The Mormon Church" monicar, and Trinitarians get to use "The Christian Church." No matter how you slice the jalepenos and put them on the biscuits, if you insist that only your church should be considered The Mormon one, but that you have as much claim to "Christian Church" as Trinitarians do...it's gonna look like a double standard. You can explain it to those willing to listen...but the surface level appearance is discrepancy.

Yep, I completely understand that. And I don't insist on the word Christian when talking to die-hard evangelicals. But, other than those guys, I don't know of anyone else who requires Christian to be Trinitarian. But, when you say Mormon - there's no doubt about it - they automatically assign the LDS church to it.

But... maybe it's my international roots which skews my perception. But if you ask any of my friends and family - mostly Catholics - well, actually I did... when I became Mormon and they told me I'm not Christian anymore - no, not because I'm not Trinitarian - they don't even know that - they think I'm not Christian because Joseph Smith is our "Jesus". Okay, to my point, when I asked my friends and family what Christian means - their answer is - one who believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So, I say... okay, I believe that too. And they say, oh, then you're Christian. Nowhere in the conversation do they bring up - oh, and by the way, you have to be Trinitarian as well. So yeah, it was a very easy conversation to make them understand I'm still Christian even if I'm not Catholic.

Another example: Nobody I know ever considers Isaac Newton to be non-Christian.

And one more example: Nobody I know considers Iglesia ni Cristo non-Christian. My family and friends never even considered to question if they are Christians - they all think they are.

So, by these examples, Trinitarians might think they own the word, but history and public perception states otherwise.

Edited May 19, 2011 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

I would never pretend to be an expert on things Filipino...though during my very brief stay there (3-months) I had the distinct impression than Iglesio ni Cristo was considered a "cult" by many. In fact, even evangelicals, called "born agains" were looked at somewhat that way. My missionary friend in Germany said that anyone who wasn't Catholic or Lutheran was consider cultish. France has a government agency that labled pentecostals, Baptists and LDS as mind-control cults.

In Korea, where I spent nearly 7 years, the churches are far more conservative than here. Sometimes denominations consider each other kinda cultish (that was 20-years ago, though...it's likely changed dramatically).

When I speak to my Catholic priest friend about groups we have that teach unique doctrines, his marker seems to be, "Do they believe in the Trinity?" At first he wondered about me, because of the one pentecostal group that is modalist.

Again, though, you make my point. We've had different experiences, and so different perspectives. You have a legitimate case to argue, that the LDS approach is not "hypocritical" or even "double-standard." However, I agree with saintish, that at first glance, it can leave that impression. After all, if we were wrong, would we even be having this discussion. You argue that the impression is wrong, and we say, "Perhaps, but be aware that for many, it is out there. Further, some who see a double-standard will simply make a judgement, and never bother to ask for the explantion.

[Guest]

I would never pretend to be an expert on things Filipino...though during my very brief stay there (3-months) I had the distinct impression than Iglesio ni Cristo was considered a "cult" by many. In fact, even evangelicals, called "born agains" were looked at somewhat that way. My missionary friend in Germany said that anyone who wasn't Catholic or Lutheran was consider cultish. France has a government agency that labled pentecostals, Baptists and LDS as mind-control cults.

In Korea, where I spent nearly 7 years, the churches are far more conservative than here. Sometimes denominations consider each other kinda cultish (that was 20-years ago, though...it's likely changed dramatically).

When I speak to my Catholic priest friend about groups we have that teach unique doctrines, his marker seems to be, "Do they believe in the Trinity?" At first he wondered about me, because of the one pentecostal group that is modalist.

Again, though, you make my point. We've had different experiences, and so different perspectives. You have a legitimate case to argue, that the LDS approach is not "hypocritical" or even "double-standard." However, I agree with saintish, that at first glance, it can leave that impression. After all, if we were wrong, would we even be having this discussion. You argue that the impression is wrong, and we say, "Perhaps, but be aware that for many, it is out there. Further, some who see a double-standard will simply make a judgement, and never bother to ask for the explantion.

Yes yes yes.. .We are completely on the same page... or index card at least.

Yes, anything non-Catholic is a cult in the Philippines... even Islam - which is big enough to be very visible. But, it doesn't stop them from being considered Christians by the majority... well, except for Islam. The big distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics is Marian. So, it's either you're Marian or you're not. And if you're not Marian, then even if you're Christians you are close to... uhm... heathen!