Why does the church say that the FLDS people aren't Mormons?

[Guest Godless]

23 hours ago, Ironhold said:

"Mormon" is the term that the general public uses when dealing with the church, and so saying that they're Mormon too would generate more confusion than is necessary.

 

To be fair, this is also a very valid reason to not call Mormons "Christian". Too many theological and ideological differences. 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, theSQUIDSTER said:

This is not completely accurate.  They don't shun computers or technology per se.  But they have very strict teachings about what can be used and how. 

I work in the IT field and met a gentleman who worked for one of our tech support contacts who said he was an FLDS apostate.. Born and raised in Colorado City.. but recently excommunicated.  He was well schooled in how to setup servers and fix PCs because, he claimed to have been a Network Admin who helped setup servers for the FLDS church network and for Warren Jeffs personally.  He told me they are ok with technology in general but have extremely strict teachings .. No Tv, extremely limited/filtered Internet content and web access... So, no you probably wouldn't run into an FLDS person on a forum or meet one on Facebook.. It was my understanding that technology is used mostly for communication with other FLDS.  This might be mostly for the leadership and not so much for the rank-and-file member.

Thanks for the great info!

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

To be fair, this is also a very valid reason to not call Mormons "Christian". Too many theological and ideological differences. 

Completely different. Few people will confuse Mormons as "Christians" with Protestants or Catholics as "Christians", and those who would suffer such confusion would not be significantly benefited by a distinction of terminology. Such is not at all the case with Latter-day Saints vs. polygamous sects.

[unixknight]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

 

To be fair, this is also a very valid reason to not call Mormons "Christian". Too many theological and ideological differences. 

That isn't a valid statement either, IMHO.  To  follow Jesus Christ is to be a Christian.    It isn't like those theological and ideological differences are with a particular organization that has an exclusive claim to the word.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That isn't a valid statement either, IMHO.  To  follow Jesus Christ is to be a Christian.    It isn't like those theological and ideological differences are with a particular organization that has an exclusive claim to the word.

 

I agree totally. To want to follow Christ and try your best-that's Christian. 

[Blackmarch]

On 3/20/2016 at 3:33 PM, emi said:

I know the mainstream LDS church has no control over the FLDS. 

 

However, we are cut from the same cloth.  They believe in many of the same things we do.  The Book of Mormon, D&C, teachings of early prophets, etc. are all part of their theology.  How could we deny that they are also Mormons?

 

it is similar to mainstream Christians trying to say we are not Christians.  No one group owns the word Christian.  I dit believe it's fair to say we own the word Mormon.  There are many branches of Mormonism and the FLDS are indeed Mormons. 

 

Thoughts?

becausewe don't want their actions attributed to us.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

becausewe don't want their actions attributed to us.

This ^^^^ is the main reason we really NEED to separate ourselves from them.  If there are some FLDS groups that feel the same way, they ought to also want to separate themselves from others who do those things which are so offensive.

What is it that Mormons do that is so offensive, evil, and disturbing that causes the rest of Christianity to want to distance themselves from us?  Again, if you look at the history, it has nothing to do with anything we've done.  They simply hate us.

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What is it that Mormons do that is so offensive, evil, and disturbing that causes the rest of Christianity to want to distance themselves from us?  Again, if you look at the history, it has nothing to do with anything we've done.  They simply hate us.

Absolutely true. The hatred we get from other Christians is totally unacceptable and very sad. 

Ironically it at least partially drew me to the church. I remember thinking "Why does everyone pick on this one church? Because it's the true one and people hate the truth?" 

[Guest]

I will at least offer this disclaimer.  The hate is really historic.  Many people want to separate themselves from us because they just believe what they're told by others who were told by others... who hated us.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I will at least offer this disclaimer.  The hate is really historic.  Many people want to separate themselves from us because they just believe what they're told by others who were told by others... who hated us.

 It's historic-but it's based in ignorance, no matter what it is. I think that's why I get irritated when LDS spout off ignorance about other churches (I've only see it happen a few times, luckily). We know what it feels like. We should know better. 

[anatess2]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 11:53 AM, Blackmarch said:

becausewe don't want their actions attributed to us.

HEADS UP!

That's also why Muslims - and Obama - don't want us to call the terrorists Muslims or Islamic.

I had an exhausting debate with a whole bunch of people on Facebook who are fit to be tied because Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court is Muslim (yes, I know he's Jewish).  I said, So what if he's Muslim (even if he isn't)?  And man... the bigotry of the many many posts after that makes me sad.

[Guest Godless]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

HEADS UP!

That's also why Muslims - and Obama - don't want us to call the terrorists Muslims or Islamic.

I had an exhausting debate with a whole bunch of people on Facebook who are fit to be tied because Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court is Muslim (yes, I know he's Jewish).  I said, So what if he's Muslim (even if he isn't)?  And man... the bigotry of the many many posts after that makes me sad.

ANATESS! Welcome back!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

HEADS UP!

That's also why Muslims - and Obama - don't want us to call the terrorists Muslims or Islamic.

FLDS make a bad name for LDS.  We do everything we can to separate ourselves from them.  We condemn their actions in word and deed.  We have Official Declarations.  We have written church policy that is enforced among its membership.  We have official statements and letters.  And such are sent to media and government officials stating our official position to the point that the AP has specific guidelines about such.

Radical Muslims make a bad name for all Muslims.  They're more than happy to separate themselves from the radicals.  But what do they condemn?  I always hear "Yes, but..."  As if to say,"Yes, they were wrong for doing that, but they are justified because..."  Wait, if it was wrong, how is it justified?

No spokesperson exists for Muslims.  Anyone can say anything and it is just as valid as anyone else.  A radical is just as accurate in interpreting the Koran as a peaceful, "westernized" Muslim.  No one has authority to say "I speak for all Muslims" except people like the Ayatollah.  How does that rate?

Mormons do have an authorized figure who speaks for all Mormons.  And I'd be shocked to hear anything (in full context) from any of our prophets that sounds anything like what radical Muslim leaders have said: "Death to America!  Death to Israel!".

Edited March 23, 2016 by Guest

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

 

Anatess!!!!  Oh, happy day!

Edited March 23, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Sorry for the thread hijack, but this is important.  . .

@anatess2 welcome back!!!

[NightSG]

On 3/22/2016 at 11:34 AM, Carborendum said:

What is it that Mormons do that is so offensive, evil, and disturbing that causes the rest of Christianity to want to distance themselves from us?  Again, if you look at the history, it has nothing to do with anything we've done.  They simply hate us.

Have you considered the possibility that it's actually you they hate and the Church just gets dragged into that by association?

[EarlJibbs]

17 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Have you considered the possibility that it's actually you they hate and the Church just gets dragged into that by association?

I doubt it. "They" refers to everyone that hate Mormons. I highly doubt that "they" all hate Carborendum collectively directly. How many people does he know?   

 

I say this tongue in cheek, but in all honesty I don't understand your comment. 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

FLDS make a bad name for LDS.  We do everything we can to separate ourselves from them.  We condemn their actions in word and deed.  We have Official Declarations.  We have written church policy that is enforced among its membership.  We have official statements and letters.  And such are sent to media and government officials stating our official position to the point that the AP has specific guidelines about such.

Radical Muslims make a bad name for all Muslims.  They're more than happy to separate themselves from the radicals.  But what do they condemn?  I always hear "Yes, but..."  As if to say,"Yes, they were wrong for doing that, but they are justified because..."  Wait, if it was wrong, how is it justified?

No spokesperson exists for Muslims.  Anyone can say anything and it is just as valid as anyone else.  A radical is just as accurate in interpreting the Koran as a peaceful, "westernized" Muslim.  No one has authority to say "I speak for all Muslims" except people like the Ayatollah.  How does that rate?

Mormons do have an authorized figure who speaks for all Mormons.  And I'd be shocked to hear anything (in full context) from any of our prophets that sounds anything like what radical Muslim leaders have said: "Death to America!  Death to Israel!".

That is because there is only 1 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints while there are MANY Muslim faiths.  Saying Muslim is like saying Christian... Who's the Spokesperson for all Christians?

All Christians can't agree either.  They can't even agree on who is Christian.  They can't agree on whether homosexuality is a sin or not.  They can't agree on whether to believe the Bible only or not...

So what do they condemn?  Easy... They all condemn Terrorism.  All of them.

So look here:  ISIS is Sunni.  Iran leadership is Shiite.  Iran backs Assad in Syria - also Shiite.  They are fighting against each other using the Sunni/Shiite differences to justify themselves.  So... you got peaceful Shiite populace in Syria getting annihilated by ISIS and peaceful Sunni populace in Syria getting annihilated by Assad.  The Kurds of Syria are getting annihilated by both ISIS and Assad... which is crazy as a lot of them are Sunnis... but they're not Arabs just like Iran is not Arab... but Iran is Shiite - Iran is also killing Iranians (non-Arab) who are Sunnis while ISIS is killing Sunnis who are not Arabs.

Now, the King of Jordan is Sunni.  But he got on a fighter jet and bombed Sunni ISIS.  He is also anti Iran.  He plasters himself in all news sources that would listen trying to condemn all Muslim terrorists and telling them how Jordanian Muslims are not terrorists even as they are Sunnis.

There are 33 other Muslim nations in addition to Jordan who formed a coalition to fight ISIS.

But no... that's not enough.  Because, you know, American right-wing news especially Sean Hannity (I can't stand his idiotic statements against the Quran and Sharia) says nobody in the Muslim world is speaking against the terrorists that hijacked Islam....

But what can you do... your family are getting killed left and right and Americans think you're the terrorist.  And you think Mormons have it tough.

Edited March 23, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Have you considered the possibility that it's actually you they hate and the Church just gets dragged into that by association?

No, I have not considered that.  But now that you mention it...  kidding.

Actually, I've been amongst co-workers, etc. in multiple conversations when they began bashing Mormons without realizing I was one.  Some of it was the typical jokes that people tell just because they're jokes.  I figured I'd just let that go as if they were telling me Asian jokes.  Yeah, some friends would do that right to my face.  We had odd relationships.

Others were based on false accusations and ignorance of what we really believe and ignorance about our history.  Those I sought to correct most of the time.  Other times, I realized that nothing I said would make any difference, so why bother?

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That is because there is only 1 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints while there are MANY Muslim faiths.  Saying Muslim is like saying Christian... Who's the Spokesperson for all Christians?

All Christians can't agree either.  They can't even agree on who is Christian.  They can't agree on whether homosexuality is a sin or not.  They can't agree on whether to believe the Bible only or not...

That was my point.

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Have you considered the possibility that it's actually you they hate and the Church just gets dragged into that by association?

Guys... this is really very simple.

Christians do not want to give Mormons the label Christians because they're not Trinitarians.  That's it.  They don't hate you... well, maybe some do.  They hate what the Mormons are doing to God that is, to them, the height of blasphemy. 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Guys... this is really very simple.

Christians do not want to give Mormons the label Christians because they're not Trinitarians.  That's it.  They don't hate you... well, maybe some do.  They hate what the Mormons are doing to God that is, to them, the height of blasphemy. 

No, it's not that simple.  The Trinitarian argument has only been around for about 25 (maybe 30) years or so.  That is, with regard to the reason for excluding Mormons in the "Christian" circle.  Prior to that it was several other reasons.  Each of those faded away because the arguments were weak.  Eventually, they had to either accept us and admit they were wrong about us, or they had to devise a justification to call us a cult and so forth.  They chose the latter.  They picked the one central doctrine that was clearly a dividing line between us -- the Trinity.

Some were not happy about that being the dividing line because it meant that they had to include Catholics.  And many wanted to exclude Catholics as well.  So, they're still trying to figure it out.  But when you take a look at what the reasoning is -- it is FIRST: We must exclude Mormons, SECOND: What reasoning can we use to justify doing so?

And I'll say it again.  The litmus test that is fair to everyone without having to resort to legalistic maneuvering is this:  If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?  For faithful Mormons, that is an emphatic YES!  While at the same time, there are legions of individuals whom these same parties (anti-Mormons) agree to include in their number who would NOT pass that test.  This includes your favorite candidate for President.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Guest

[Guest Godless]

28 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, it's not that simple.  The Trinitarian argument has only been around for about 25 (maybe 30) years or so.  That is, with regard to the reason for excluding Mormons in the "Christian" circle.  Prior to that it was several other reasons.  Each of those faded away because the arguments were weak.  Eventually, they had to either accept us and admit they were wrong about us, or they had to devise a justification to call us a cult and so forth.  They chose the latter.  They picked the one central doctrine that was clearly a dividing line between us -- the Trinity.

Some were not happy about that being the dividing line because it meant that they had to include Catholics.  And many wanted to exclude Catholics as well.  So, they're still trying to figure it out.  But when you take a look at what the reasoning is -- it is FIRST: We must exclude Mormons, SECOND: What reasoning can we use to justify doing so?

The most common argument I hear (and one that I fully agree with) is that, Trinity aside, the volumes of non-biblical doctrine in the LDS canon are more than enough to warrant a distinction between Mormon and Christian. It has nothing to do with animosity and everything to do with avoiding doctrinal confusion. Yes, there are plenty of anti-mormons out there who love to say you're not Christians simply because they hate you, but there are also people who have nothing against the LDS church, but feel that the Christian label would be misleading.

[prisonchaplain]

LDS will say they are Christians, and FLDS will say they are Mormons.  Traditional Christians (especially Fundamentalists) will disagree, and SLC-based LDS will disagree with the FLDS.  There it is.

As for why non-LDS question the Christian-ness of LDS theology, my experience growing up is that the problem was doctrine.  Two main doctrines were the Trinity and salvation-by-grace vs. works. The latter over-lapped with criticism of Catholics, and there are Fundamentalists (and some Evangelicals) who question them, as well.  There may be a history that goes back further, in which other issues were at play, but the "anti" books I read growing up were copyrighted in the 1960s, and they were all about doctrine. 

I'll repeat an incident I experienced in seminary (graduate theology school). We were studying "The New Issue." Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity, and embrace modalism (Jesus is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit = three "modes" that he will take on). I asked if they could be considered Christians, since they denied the Trinity. He said they could--they just needed to 'grow up and admit they were wrong.'  Perhaps he cut them slack because they agreed with us on everything else, and he believed that they really kinda knew we were right, but just weren't ready to give up the fight.  I'm not sure.  Ever since then, I've been reticent to say any self-proclaimed Christian is disqualified because of a single doctrinal difference.  I go with the typical bureaucratic, "I can neither confirm nor deny..."

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

1) The most common argument I hear (and one that I fully agree with) is that, Trinity aside, the volumes of non-biblical doctrine in the LDS canon are more than enough to warrant a distinction between Mormon and Christian.

2) Yes, there are plenty of anti-mormons out there who love to say you're not Christians simply because they hate you, but there are also people who have nothing against the LDS church, but feel that the Christian label would be misleading.

1) I partially agree.  But there is a difference between disagreeing on deeper, more obscure doctrines (which mainstream Christians also disagree on) and disagreement on the belief that Faith on Jesus Christ is necessary for Salvation.  If you're going to go the route of all the myriad doctrines, then, in fairness, you'd have to exclude the vast majority of those who ARE considered Christians.

As long as A) You are consistent and B) Your motive is based on sincere belief in something, then you have a leg to stand on.  Otherwise, I know what the motive is.

2) Yes.  And yes.  I don't see how that changes what I've said.  I even believe I hinted at it.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Guest