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

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

1) 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.

2) 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. 

3) 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. 

4)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..."

1) I think we've already established this.  And I have no argument with it.

2) The anti-literature I read growing up talked about many doctrinal differences.  But of the stuff I read, even as late as 1990, the Trinity was not foremost among them.  This is partially because many whom I associated with were well aware of the fact that many other Christian sects also denied the Trinity.  It is also compounded by the fact that the average Christian knew so little about the Trinity and those who did, many did not comprehend it.  So, those individuals would also be excluded.  To accept them, but not accept Mormons was begging the question.

Other doctrinal issues came up.  Yes, of course our beliefs are different.  Otherwise we'd all be the same faith.  But where do you draw the line?  And who decides that?

3) This anecdote illustrates my point.  If it is the doctrinal difference, which doctrines?  Are you (not YOU, PC, just the general "you") using the ones that separate us because you want to separate us?  Or are you choosing them because they really are that central to your concept of Christian?  If so, then be prepared to exclude many others that you feel should be considered Christians or else that is hypocrisy or begging the question.

4) I can appreciate that.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

16 hours 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?

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.

In that case, I don't really know what you're talking about.  The Trinity has always been the dividing line ever since well before the Protestants protested.  As far as I know.

And about the litmus test... yes, Mormons are Christians.  But as far as other Christians not wanting to assign that label to us... do I care?  No.  I'd gladly admit I'm not Christian if their definition of Christian is different than mine.  Stick and stones....

My favorite candidate for President is a devout Catholic.  DUTERTE, Y'ALL!

[Guest]

Anatess, 

I understand the confusion.  I'll try to clear it up a bit.  I'm going to guess that you might have missed my earlier post about how part of me would rather be separated.  But many times I just don't think it makes any sense.  What I meant was this:

1) I absolutely agree with all other Christian faiths that we, as Mormons, are different -- in doctrine, in culture, in behavior, in many different ways.  I myself have some "pride" (both good and bad) that we are a peculiar people.  Obviously we have some fairly important doctrines that are rare or are simply not to be found in other Christian faiths:  Pre-existence, Godhead, Eternal Progression, Three degrees of glory...  The list goes on.  So, if that really is the reason people want to label us as "non-Christian", then bless them and be on both our ways.

2) What I find that doesn't make sense is when they are either inconsistent in applying whatever their litmus test is, OR they are being disingenuous as to their motives for wanting to separate themselves from us.  If it is truly doctrinal and they are being consistent, and in all other ways they love us as we love them as children of God, then I've got no problem with it.

Part of my disapproval for the "Mormons are not Christians" mantra is my personal experience.  For my entire upbringing (as early as 9 years old) my 8 closest friends, almost weekly, told me "what I didn't know about Mormons".  While there were about 30 saints in my high school of 1200 or so, I, my brother, and one other friend were the ones who were most associated with being Mormons.  But I was the only one of the three of us that would sit and discuss it.  So, I became a magnet for this sort of thing.

Over the course of 8 or 9 years, I had to show each of them where the evidence was weak or their logic was flawed.  But it was clear they were dead set on finding fault when one of them declared that the BoM was obviously false because there were no boats in 600 B.C. (Tell that to Noah).  While even the others stared at the one who said this, they didn't realize that their own arguments were just as weak.  They made excuses for being inconsistent. On and on...

This, of course, continued into mission and college... and beyond.  So, whenever I hear the mantra repeated, my knee-jerk reaction is to roll my eyes.

As far as the Trinity:

Some would start with the "you worship a different Christ" argument.  But as I pointed out what that sentence actually said and meant, they didn't go to the Trinity willingly.  I was the one who said,"unless you're saying the Trinity?"  Then they'd grasp it as a straw and declare, "YES! That's exactly what I'm saying".  Obviously, it never occurred to them until I offered that straw to them.

There is a history about the Trinity that needs its own thread.  But,no, during and after the Reformation, there were many faiths (long before Joseph Smith) who declared the Trinity was "yet another" false road that called for the reformation.  It took centuries to settle that issue (and it still has not fully).  And as late as the mid 80s, I had a relative from Louisiana who was some non-denominational Christian who was fully non-Trinitarian.  And he had some problem defining what it was that made Mormons not Christians.

[prisonchaplain]

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

2) The anti-literature I read growing up talked about many doctrinal differences.  But of the stuff I read, even as late as 1990, the Trinity was not foremost among them.  This is partially because many whom I associated with were well aware of the fact that many other Christian sects also denied the Trinity.  It is also compounded by the fact that the average Christian knew so little about the Trinity and those who did, many did not comprehend it.  So, those individuals would also be excluded.  To accept them, but not accept Mormons was begging the question.

Other doctrinal issues came up.  Yes, of course our beliefs are different.  Otherwise we'd all be the same faith.  But where do you draw the line?  And who decides that?

3) This anecdote illustrates my point.  If it is the doctrinal difference, which doctrines?  Are you (not YOU, PC, just the general "you") using the ones that separate us because you want to separate us?  Or are you choosing them because they really are that central to your concept of Christian?  If so, then be prepared to exclude many others that you feel should be considered Christians or else that is hypocrisy or begging the question.

 

2. It might help me to know which doctrines they are bringing up, because this strikes me as odd.  Moving away from the shrill "anti" stuff, the two books I'm familiar with that go from the late 90s to early 2000s still focused on primary doctrines. How Wide the Divide? (a dialogue book co-authored by LDS and Evangelical professors) and The New Mormon Challenge (mostly Evangelical scholars) both showed a recognition developing LDS theology and scholarship, while taking issue with core differences. Those distinctions focused on the nature of God and humanity, continuing revelation, and grace vs. works.

3.  For many church leaders I would guess the doctrine of the Trinity does remain non-negotiable. My professor was willing to give the Oneness folk a pass, however many anti-cult sites list them as among the heterodox groups.  Exaltation strikes at the Trinity doctrine from another vantage point, so that doctrine may get flagged as well.

My standard answer to the big question of where the line is between doctrinal difference that could deny one reconciliation with God (a different question from that which might separate us ecclesiastically) is: If we both (groups or individuals) claim to be led by the Holy Spirit--to have sustained our faith's doctrines--and yet we disagree on all of our core beliefs--then at least one of us is wrong. The Holy Spirit is not leading both us into truth. So, how far can we stray from the leading of the Holy Spirit before we have blasphemed him?  The answer to that is between God and the individual soul.  I would not dare to offer false comfort, nor unfounded condemnation.

[LeSellers]

19 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If we both (groups or individuals) … disagree on all of our core beliefs

I strongly suggest that we do not "disagree on all of our core beliefs".

There are at least a dozen we could discuss where we agree virtually 100%, e.g., Christ is our Savior and Redeemer, God is the Creator of the universe, Faith is requisite for salvation.

There are even some areas where the agreement is ≈ ½ or maybe even less, but there the core of that doctrine is the same: the Trinity. We believe that there is one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit (see, for instance, the Testimony of the Three Witnesses). We disagree one Their nature (that is, we know the both the Father and the Son have physical bodies and you see the Father — at least — as having only a spirit form, whose "shape" is unknown).

How Wide the Divide is a good book on the whole issue of what our differences really are, rather than how some people have imagined them to be. But the more I study this, the narrower these doctrines really become.

The real issue, the only issue that matters, is whether we hold the Priesthood of God. If we do, ours is the One, True Church of Jesus Christ. If not, you all are left wondering if it's the RCC, or the Greeks (and other) Orthodox churches. Because none of the Protestant churches has a priesthood. Either there was a Restoration, or there was not, and a Reformation would not be sufficient to restore the Priesthood. It's not the way God works, not how He restored His Priesthood in the past, and not how He said He would do it.

Lehi

[Guest]

2) They'd talk about the three degrees of glory, they'd talk about Eternal Progression(deification), pre-earth life, polygamy, modern prophets, priesthood authority, baptism (yes, baptism), others.

It's not that the doctrines were incorrectly described.  But I was surprised that a) they mischaracterized them with propaganda more than logic or evidence.  And b) they held those so near and dear that it was the basis of not including us.  And what disappointed me most was the reasoning behind why they felt such doctrines were "simply un-Christian".

3) That's fine.  As I said in my post to Anatess, I'm ok with doctrinal differences.  But it needs to be not only consistently applied to many modern faiths, but it also needs to be consistent with historical faiths that the same individuals would have accepted as Christians.

Additionally, a reasonable and loving approach is to do so out of honesty and a faithful declaration of belief.  But based on the personal interactions, I found many struggling with the reasoning behind it, but first and foremost, they would not agree to anything unless it supported their predisposed position that Mormons are not Christians.  This made no sense to me.

It's not that I care.  It's that the way it's often done, it doesn't tend to make sense.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

LeSellers, let me clarify.  We have a measure of disagreement on all of our core doctrines.  I once did a string here comparing the Articles of Faith with my church's Statement of Fundamental Truths.  As you say, we could find some agreement on all doctrines, but there was not one we could totally agree with.  Even the Article of Faith that speaks to allowing all people to worship as their conscience dictates has built into it the idea that some will be redeemed to levels of glory, despite their not calling on Jesus for forgiveness and salvation.

As to the priesthood, most Protestants embrace the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  How that plays out is that when we read Jesus giving instructions to the disciples/apostles, we take those as marching orders we are all to obey.  The Great Commission (Go make disciples . . . ) is probably the biggest example of that.  In LDS circles this doctrine might be called "Every member a missionary."

[Guest]

The Trinity:

I'd say that "variants" of Trinitarianism come closer to the Godhead than modern Trinitarian thinking as I understand it.  John Duns Scotus described it in such a manner that I thought he was describing the Godhead.

The Tertulian model (I hope I spelled that right) has aspects that are what I estimate as half-way between.

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

2) They'd talk about the three degrees of glory, they'd talk about Eternal Progression(deification), pre-earth life, polygamy, modern prophets, priesthood authority, baptism (yes, baptism), others.

 

The degrees of glory relates to salvation through faith in Christ, by grace.  It seems to Evangelicals to suggest that one could go to a heaven with a specific faith in Christ.  Since we reject the idea of chances after death, this strikes at the very doctrine of how we reconcile with God.  Sacramental baptism strikes us as, once again, making salvation conditional upon "works," and upon church (read human organization) approval. 

Eternal Progression and the pre-earth life strike again at the doctrine of the Trinity. If we can become God, then God is not what we say He is--eternally three-in-one, forever distinct from his creation.

Polygamy has always struck me as one people highlight for sensationalism. It's an Old Testament practice, though we believe it was never God's ideal. I might not join ecclesiastically with polygamists (which, I realize the Church does not allow), but neither would declare them without hope of salvation.  Prophets and priesthood doctrines, while interesting, are arguments we have amongst ourselves, as well.  I'll also admit that baptism is one we debate amongst ourselves. 

[prisonchaplain]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The Trinity:

I'd say that "variants" of Trinitarianism come closer to the Godhead than modern Trinitarian thinking as I understand it.  John Duns Scotus described it in such a manner that I thought he was describing the Godhead.

The Tertulian model (I hope I spelled that right) has aspects that are what I estimate as half-way between.

 

IMHO, the real divide between Trinitarians and LDS Godhead should include a discussion of pre-mortal existence and exaltation.  It's not just that the persons in the LDS Godhead are completely separate, but also that humanity is said to have an eternal nature, and can be exalted to Godhood. 

See if this works:

Modalism: 1 = 1x1x1

Trinitarianism 1x1x1 = 1

LDS: 1+1+1 = (1+1+1 ... + exalted humans) i.e., one set, I suppose

To add a wrinkle, Jehovah's Witnesses would say:

1 = Father

Spirit = Father's power

Jesus = godlike angel

 

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

1) The degrees of glory relates to salvation through faith in Christ, by grace.  It seems to Evangelicals to suggest that one could go to a heaven with a specific faith in Christ.  

2) Since we reject the idea of chances after death, this strikes at the very doctrine of how we reconcile with God. 

3) Sacramental baptism strikes us as, once again, making salvation conditional upon "works," and upon church (read human organization) approval. 

4) Eternal Progression and the pre-earth life strike again at the doctrine of the Trinity. If we can become God, then God is not what we say He is--eternally three-in-one, forever distinct from his creation.

5) Polygamy has always struck me as one people highlight for sensationalism. It's an Old Testament practice, though we believe it was never God's ideal. I might not join ecclesiastically with polygamists (which, I realize the Church does not allow), but neither would declare them without hope of salvation. 

6) Prophets and priesthood doctrines, while interesting, are arguments we have amongst ourselves, as well.  I'll also admit that baptism is one we debate amongst ourselves. 

1) I'm not really following that logic.  Could you expound a bit?  That said, I agree we are different on that score.  What I furrow my brow at is that this difference is so small to me that others would be so dogmatic as to use this as a "defining characteristic" of Christianity doesn't make much sense to me.

2) So do we.  I think you may not understand what the "second chance" that you speak of actually is according to our faith.

3) Faith / works is an interesting debate that will continue.  But as you said in #6, you have those debates too.  

   I remember W. disagreed with his mother about whether baptism is a "requirement" to be saved.  So they decided to ask Rev. Billy Graham to settle the argument.  He said, "You just worry about yourself.  Let the Lord worry about others."  Apparently, he did not want to define that one.

4) The mischaracterization / lie: One day we will be completely independent of God because we wouldn't need Him anymore, etc.

Question 1: If I become a father, does my father cease to be my father?  Wouldn't I need to go to him and ask for advice from time-to-time?

Question 2: What does it mean to be a god?  A god is an immortal being of immense power (we can even say all-powerful, but that is a more detailed discussion) You believe we can become angels.  What is an angel?  An immortal being of immense power.

Rebuttal: But angels are always dependent on God and His power.  --- Yes, so will we.  So, what's the difference?  ---(shrug) well, we still don't agree on that.  It sounds the same to me, but it doesn't to you.  Whatever.

5) Yup.

6) Yup.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Modalism: 1 = 1x1x1

Trinitarianism 1x1x1 = 1

LDS: 1+1+1 = (1+1+1 ... + exalted humans) i.e., one set, I suppose

I've never thought of Modalism: Trinitarianism like that before.  I don't know how well versed you are in math.  But what it says mathematically doesn't seem like what I understand the differences to be in theology.

LDS... Not quite.  

• 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
• 3 beings per set x 3 members = 1 set
• Therefore 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 set
• We do not enter into the Godhead.  They are separate from us.  They will always be above us.

The three person leadership has a close relationship to our three person leadership in Church organization.  

• 1 Bishop + 2 counselors = 1 bishopric.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

On 3/24/2016 at 9:48 AM, prisonchaplain said:

We have a measure of disagreement on all of our core doctrines.  I once did a string here comparing the Articles of Faith with my church's Statement of Fundamental Truths.  As you say, we could find some agreement on all doctrines, but there was not one we could totally agree with.  Even the Article of Faith that speaks to allowing all people to worship as their conscience dictates has built into it the idea that some will be redeemed to levels of glory, despite their not calling on Jesus for forgiveness and salvation.

We do not believe that anyone will be saved to any degree of glory without "calling on Jesus for forgiveness and salvation." We believe that every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that He is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world.

Yes, I acknowledge that there are at least minor differences in our doctrines, but I maintain that those differences are often trivial, and that those who tout them as excluding us a Christians are splitting hairs that need not be split except to achieve their ends.

On 3/24/2016 at 9:48 AM, prisonchaplain said:

As to the priesthood, most Protestants embrace the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  How that plays out is that when we read Jesus giving instructions to the disciples/apostles, we take those as marching orders we are all to obey.  The Great Commission (Go make disciples . . . ) is probably the biggest example of that.  In LDS circles this doctrine might be called "Every member a missionary."

I've read much about the "Priesthood of all believers." It makes no sense at all to me because it essentially negates the concept of Priesthood.

The "Great Commission" was not given to people in general, but to the Apostles:

¹⁶ Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. ¹⁷ When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. ¹⁸ Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

To assume He meant everyone who believed/s Him to be the Christ was to go out and "make disciples" is to read much more into it than Matthew recorded. First, it was about baptism  (which many Christians reject as salvific anyway), and baptism requires the Priesthood, which they had already received. Second, it refutes the Trinity by using the formulaic "in name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", not "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", which is a different construction, and which would support the Trinity.

These points aside (which was not my point), the assumed gulf between what Latter-day Saints believe and what mainstream, creedal Christians believe is largely illusory, semantics, and nit-picking. Only if one takes a rigorous stance that this is "Christian" and anything beyond this bound is not (which makes "Christian" a very small circle, indeed), then there is a lot of hoop jumping going on to exclude LDSs while including a myriad of others because I can't find many LDS doctrines that aren't shared, in general, by at least one of those who are usually included in the club.

Lehi

Edited April 13, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

On March 21, 2016 at 8:42 PM, NeedleinA said:

Thank you Lehi, great find! This clearly looks like, yes, the Church is defending the name "Mormon". 

Where is JAG when you need him? 

As best I can tell: 
1. The LDS church both "does" and "doesn't" own/right to the word "Mormon". 
2. The Church holds trademarks etc. through a division/company called: Intellectual Reserve, Inc.
3. It appears we (LDS Church) have the rights to "Mormon" when it comes to Educational Classes/Institutions.
4. It appears we do not have the rights to "Mormon" when it comes to Religious Services. 
 

Apologies for the delay in responding, Needle.  This isn't really my field of expertise, but I'm not sure the registration per se does much legally except to give you a venue in which to cry "FIRST!!!!"  I think it could still theoretically be contested; and I daresay that if we tried to send the Communities of Christ a cease-and-desist letter demanding that they publish their edition of the Book of Mormon under some other title, we'd find out very quickly just how toothless that registration is.

From a pragmatic standpoint, I think the Church feels that the word Mormon carries a cachet of respectability, upright living and general goodwill which has been established by its members--and ONLY its own members.  It doesn't want to see fundie moonbats watering that down, or otherwise undermining what we've spent the last century working for.

Our own insistence on being deemed "Christian" is somewhat ironic, but the attempt by some Evangelicals to lock us (and Catholics, and any other self-described "Christian" group whom they deem insufficiently orthodox) out of Christendom is even more so.  Because these self-appointed gatekeepers are actually seeking to co-opt and monopolize a "brand" that existed long before they came on to the scene; and certain political developments of late make me suspect that vast swaths of that movement aren't really that interested in upright living, hard work, compassion, moderation, and the other virtues by which "Christianity" has become distinguishable the world over.

[tesuji]

Are the FLDS Mormons? Well, "Mormon" is kind of a vague term.

If by "Mormons" you mean are they members of the church that was re-established by Jesus Christ in modern times and is currently led by a true prophet of God, then no, the FLDS are not Mormons.

If you mean people who are following the true prophet of Jesus Christ, then no, the FLDS are not Mormons.

If you mean people who believe some of the general doctrines of the "Latter Day Movement" then I guess you could say they are sort of Mormons. But they are not "Mormon" in the ways that matter.

Edited April 13, 2016 by tesuji