What actually is LDS Doctrine regarding...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

Droopy wrote:
Using that definition, anyone who believes in Joseph Smith would be Mormon. But it's not that simple, as Mormons know.



Logically fallacious. One may believe in Joseph Smith quite without committing, for whatever reasons, to membership in the Church, just as one may follow Christ but be a "non-denominational" Christian.


FLDS aren't "non-denominational Mormons." They absolutely believe they are members of the true church which Joseph Smith restored. Just as LDS believe they are members of the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Further, "Christianity" is a generic term designating a wide variety of specific of religious organizations and systems of belief.


That is only one meaning of the term, which originally came to mean those who belonged to a particular church claimed to have been instituted by Jesus Christ, baptized by those they recognized as being in authority. It has never ceased to have that particular meaning, either, even post-Reformation.

"Mormonism" is a specific religious system claiming sole authenticity as the true church of Jesus Christ. To be a "Mormon", one must join the Mormon Church, not just accept a hodge podge of its doctrines or principles.


FLDS were originally LDS, and were excommunicated. The only "other principle" to which they subscribe is plural marriage, which at the time they were sent to live in other communities was also a belief and practice of the LDS Church.

To be a Christian, one must merely accept and try to live the teachings of Christ. Church membership is peripheral to one's legitimate claim to Christian discipleship.


According to whom? Not to the Christian church, surely. Again, it really has to do with which end of the lens you're at.

It's a topic for a thread of its own, but the LDS Church is making a lot of noise recently about FLDS being involved in "identity theft" by using the "Church of Latter-day Saints" portion of its name, with no admission whatever that the LDS Church takes the words "Church of Jesus Christ" from a pre-existing source, which can itself by the same standard be considered identity theft.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

Droopy wrote:
Not according to the Christians themselves, anymore than Mormons think anyone who is FLDS or any other splinter group of Mormonism is Mormon.

Mormons absolutely cannot have this one both ways.



Yes they can, as long as you don't conflate the general and the particular, as you are wont to do.


See last paragraph in my post above.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Mercury wrote:I remember repeatedly during the eighties the old ward members would get up and rile against those "damn christians" and how thankful they were that they were not christian.




Sorry dude. I don't believe the context was they were not Christian. If this was really said then it was not sectarian Christian.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

FLDS were originally LDS, and were excommunicated. The only "other principle" to which they subscribe is plural marriage, which at the time they were sent to live in other communities was also a belief and practice of the LDS Church.


Many FLDS were never LDS. Warren Jeff's wasn't. His father may not have been either. Not sure though. But I imagine some of them may have been LDS.

To be a Christian, one must merely accept and try to live the teachings of Christ. Church membership is peripheral to one's legitimate claim to Christian discipleship.

According to whom? Not to the Christian church, surely. Again, it really has to do with which end of the lens you're at.


I have to go with Hanna on this one. It seems to me that whether one is Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and so on there is an expectation that one who claims Christianity will most likely affiliate with a Church. Even low Church non denominational Protestants believe that to walk the Christian walk one should join some Church family after accepting Jesus as Lord.
It's a topic for a thread of its own, but the LDS Church is making a lot of noise recently about FLDS being involved in "identity theft" by using the "Church of Latter-day Saints" portion of its name, with no admission whatever that the LDS Church takes the words "Church of Jesus Christ" from a pre-existing source, which can itself by the same standard be considered identity theft.



I have no issue with splinter groups from the LDS Church using some form of LDS or some from of Mormon so long as they are distinguishing themselves from the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

Jason Bourne wrote:
FLDS were originally LDS, and were excommunicated. The only "other principle" to which they subscribe is plural marriage, which at the time they were sent to live in other communities was also a belief and practice of the LDS Church.


Many FLDS were never LDS. Warren Jeff's wasn't. His father may not have been either. Not sure though. But I imagine some of them may have been LDS.


Many LDS were never mainstream Christian, either.

I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about the provenance of the organization, actually. The LDS Church is not now and never was a "splinter group" from, or branch of, the "Christian Church" in the sense that many other churches can legitimately claim to be (Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican/Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc.).

The FLDS Church was, however, a direct splinter from the LDS Church.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

Alexander Campbell would be rolling in his grave over that last comment.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

rcrocket wrote:Alexander Campbell would be rolling in his grave over that last comment.


I assume you're misspeaking here and mean "next-to-last comment."

Alexander Campbell would be rolling over in his grave that anyone is still defending what he regarded as Joseph Smith's hodgepodge.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

My comment was directed to your post.
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

rcrocket wrote:My comment was directed to your post.


Yes, but irrelevant to the final comment in it, so I assume you meant next-to-last (in my post).
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

If you try arguing Mormons are Christians at CARM, they don't give you a chance, they suffocate you.


I am familiar with the workings of CARM. But out on their own, they can't survive the full onslaught of the word of God against them. The Bible is a friend to LDS only.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
Post Reply