The journey from there to here
Published on September 19, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Misc

Dr. Guy wrote a piece on the leader of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or, the FLDS, a Mormon splinter group that most in both the Mormon community and the larger Christian community at large consider to be a cult. In response, a blogger who is a member of the Salt Lake City based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the group known to most of us as "the Mormons") stated that Warren Jeffs was not a Mormon. I take issue with this statement, although it is common among Mormons.

See, for many years, many in the evangelical community have denied that Mormons are Christians. They've attached some rather nasty labels to it, although most Mormons consider themselves Christians, and they are considered by the majority of leaders among world religions to be a Christian sect. The logic is that Mormons have a right to self define themselves as Christians, because they recognize Jesus Christ, even though their understanding of His person and work might differ from the understanding of other sects.

The problem is, many of these Mormons are not willing to extend the same courteousy to sects within their own faith, such as the FLDS, or other splinter groups (most of whom, for the record, do not currently practice polygamy). If they do not recognize the leade or the SLC church, you are "not Mormon".

But, the FLDS church defines itself as Mormon, and, in some ways, its practices are closer to those of the founders of the original Mormon church. While some of their beliefs may differ strongly (although many early leaders such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did practice polygamy, they did not practice the strict control practiced by splinter groups led by people like Jeffs, and their actual practice of polygamy was quite different from the way the FLDS church practices), the FLDS nonetheless has the same right to self define its identity as do the SLC Mormons. While it's certainly fair to refer to the FLDS as a "splinter group", or mention that they are not affiliated with the SLC church, they are nonetheless Mormon in the strictest sense of the word, just as Mormons are Christians in the strictest sense of the word.


Comments
on Sep 19, 2006
I dpnt fault the mainstream Mormons from disowning the FLDS.  After all, most mainstream Christians like to disassociate the radicals who bomb abortion clinics in the name of Christianity.  However, I see your point.  I will allow them to not claim communion with the splinter group, even if technically they are Mormons.
on Sep 19, 2006
I will allow them to not claim communion with the splinter group, even if technically they are Mormons.


They should grant the same right to other sects of Christianity as well, then. You can't have it both ways.

And while the FLDS are extremist, they are one of many LDS splinter groups. Most mainstream Mormons have just as strong a view against the RLDS, which is far more mainstream than many of the groups. For a group that wants to be invited to the dance, they sure do their fair share of shunning sometimes.
on Sep 19, 2006
Gid:

Didn't mean my comment as a slight against the FLDS church. I don't like to shun anyone for any reaon. In the strictest sense of the word, as you said, they are Mormons. But I simply said what I said to explain that it was a splinter group, not the larger, Salt-Lake based church.

I don't have a strong view against anyone, except people who don't like me for being me.

On another point, the RLDS church really doesn't call itself that anymore. They're declared the Book of Mormon is not scripture and Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, just a good guy. They're now named the Community of Christ. So they really wouldn't be called Mormons anymore.
on Sep 20, 2006
The nickname "Mormon" is associated with members of The church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. Durring the early days of the church it was used from what I understand as a derrogetory term to describe the Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints because of their belief in the Book of Mormon.

Once Polygamy was no longer practiced by the Church, (to include a grace period of those who already had plural marraiges) it became an excomunicable offence. Once excommunicated by any church, a person is no longer considered a member of that church.

By the mere fact that "Mormon" is directly linked to Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, and for the fact that you have to be baptised by a member of that faith who has proper authority, it would follow that Members of the FLDS arent technicaly mormons. It would be more accurate to say that they believe in the Book of Mormon, however are not mormons.
on Sep 21, 2006
e nickname "Mormon" is associated with members of The church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints


I could also strictly define "Christian" as being associated with the beliefs expressed at the Council of Nicea, S. Brown. By THAT definition, Mormons don't fit.

I think it is fair to make it clear that the FLDS is not associated with the SLC, or that the FLDS is a sect of Mormonism, but it is as unfair to make the blanket statement that "FLDS aren't Mormons" as it is to make the blanket statement, "Mormons aren't Christians"

BTW, San Chonino, thanks for the updated info on the RLDS.
on Sep 21, 2006
By THAT definition, Mormons don't fit.


But if that's the definition I have to confine myself in to be called Christian, go ahead and don't call me one.
on Sep 21, 2006
But if that's the definition I have to confine myself in to be called Christian, go ahead and don't call me one.


My point was, his definition was a rather narrow one, even though it was common, as was mine.

I agree with your response, San Chonino, and agree there's a need to differentiate these guys (the FLDS) from the guys you see bicycling through your town and knocking on doors. But to deny their affiliation with Mormon belief simply isn't the way to do it.
on Sep 23, 2006
Narrow as the deffinition is, I think it is correct - A Lutheran would not consider himself Catholic. Nor would any of the other splinter groups consider themselves Catholic. They may group themselves as Protestant, but you would never call a Methodist a Catholic? Yet they all use the same book.

No one denys where the Lutheran church came from, however, they are no longer Catholic. If you asked a Catholic if they were....etc.

The Definition IS Narrow, but that's what it is, a definition, nothing more. It's not personal, it's factual.

on Sep 23, 2006
The Definition IS Narrow, but that's what it is, a definition, nothing more. It's not personal, it's factual.


Then don't take offense if an evangelical Christian doesn't consider Mormons "Christian". I am not saying they're wrong in their analysis, just that they have a glaring double standard when they beg for inclusion in a group that often excludes them, while denying inclusion to another group. There's actually a perfect Biblical illustration for this, but I have neither the time nor inclination to go there.
on Sep 25, 2006
Then don't take offense if an evangelical Christian doesn't consider Mormons "Christian". I am not saying they're wrong in their analysis, just that they have a glaring double standard when they beg for inclusion in a group that often excludes them, while denying inclusion to another group.


And that's exactly why my feelings don't get hurt when the evangelicals tell me that I'm not a Christian. I reply with, "well, by your definition, I'm not." So I'm not guilty of the double standard, eh?
on Sep 25, 2006
I reply with, "well, by your definition, I'm not." So I'm not guilty of the double standard, eh?


Not at all. But I've met many Mormons who are.

The way I see it, we all should have the right to self define our religious identity to some degree. The vast majority of people in any given denomination don't measure up to some people's definition of that denomination, in my personal experience.
on Sep 25, 2006
But I've met many Mormons who are.


I'm just surprised by these people. As I've mentioned, I don't like double standards, and thus, I don't mind being called non-christian. I can promise you, when I was one of those "guys you see bicycling through your town and knocking on doors" as you so succintly put it, I was called a lot worse than non-christian. (Something along the lines of "son of Satan", "devilchild", "devilspawn", "pagan" . . . hmm . . . there's lots more, but you get the idea. )

Interesting note: For many years, members of the LDS church (this being the Salt Lake one, the big'un) tried to eschew the use of the word "Mormon" to define its members. Then, for a few decades, they decided it was a good idea to be "Mormons". And now there's a resurgence of people saying, "We shouldn't be called 'Mormons' anymore." Huh.

Another side note, more on topic: I saw an interview on one of the local news shows where they went into Colorado City, the FLDS base of operations, and all of the people who they showed refused to be called Mormons. Just so ya know.