Holland Highlights LDS Hypocrisy With Fundamentalist Mormons

[Guest]

-

[_bcspace]

If the LDS Church wants to be accepted as Christian

We do not want to be equated with traditional or creedal christianity.

[_Fiannan]

I always use the term "fundamentalist Mormons" to refer to polygamists. I see no problem with that.

[_Drifting]

If the LDS Church wants to be accepted as Christian

We do not want to be equated with traditional or creedal christianity.

Official, Doctrinal position of the Church...

Of course we are Christians. Why would anyone say otherwise?

http://www.LDS.org/new-era/1998/05/are- ... s?lang=eng

[_Buffalo]

Holland is quoted as saying at the Harvard Law School:

“Why do these Mormons stir up such emotions in people and why are they not considered Christian by some?” Let me conclude with just a few thoughts on that.

We are not considered “Christian” by some because we are not fourth-century Christians, we are not Nicene Christians, we are not creedal Christians of the brand that arose hundreds of years after Christ. No, when we speak of “restored Christianity” we speak of the Church as it was in its New Testament purity, not as it became when great councils were called to debate and anguish over what it was they really believed. So if one means Greek-influenced, council-convening, philosophy-flavored Christianity of post-apostolic times, we are not that kind of Christian. Peter we know, and Paul we know, but Constantine and Athanasius, Athens and Alexandria we do not know. (Actually, we know them, we just don’t follow them.)

This exact same response could be given to the PR department of the LDS Church and their position on fundamentalist Mormons being Mormon:

“Why do these "Fundamentalist" Mormons stir up such emotions in people and why are they not considered Mormon by some?” Let me conclude with just a few thoughts on that.

We are not considered “Mormon” by some because we are not 21st-century Mormons, we are not monogamous Mormons, we are not politically correct Mormons of the brand that arose about a hundred years after Brigham Young. No, when we speak of “real Mormonism” we speak of the Church as it was in its Pioneer purity, not as it became when the threat of losing property and tax-exempt status resulted in debate and anguish over what it was they really believed. So if one means Government-influenced, manifesto-issuing, PR-friendly Mormonism of post-polygamy times, we are not that kind of Mormon. Joseph Smith we know, Brigham Young we know, and John Taylor we know, but Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, Heber J Grant and George Albert Smith we do not know. (Actually, we know them, we just don’t follow them.)

If the LDS Church wants to be accepted as Christian then they need to likewise do unto their fundamentalist Mormon brothers and they need to accept the responsibility for their own deceptive practices that lead to polygamy being secretly practiced. Until they learn to treat others as they desire to be treated they don't deserve to be called Christian.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

[_Buffalo]

The "creedal Christians" are just following the continuing revelation that God gave to his Christian followers. Why is Holland such a fundamentalist? Why does Holland reject the oracles of the Lord?

Not that Mormonism bears any resemblance to first century Christianity, but let's leave that issue aside for now.

[_Equality]

The "creedal Christians" are just following the continuing revelation that God gave to his Christian followers. Why is Holland such a fundamentalist? Why does Holland reject the oracles of the Lord?

Not that Mormonism bears any resemblance to first century Christianity, but let's leave that issue aside for now.

Precisely. And the fundamentalist Mormons bear a much greater resemblance to early Mormonism than the Monsonite branch of Mormonism does. Holland wants to argue that changes to Christianity after New Testament times are evidence of an "apostasy" but the fundies make the same argument about the Monsonites--and can anyone seriously argue the point?

[_Buffalo]

The "creedal Christians" are just following the continuing revelation that God gave to his Christian followers. Why is Holland such a fundamentalist? Why does Holland reject the oracles of the Lord?

Not that Mormonism bears any resemblance to first century Christianity, but let's leave that issue aside for now.

Precisely. And the fundamentalist Mormons bear a much greater resemblance to early Mormonism than the Monsonite branch of Mormonism does. Holland wants to argue that changes to Christianity after New Testament times are evidence of an "apostasy" but the fundies make the same argument about the Monsonites--and can anyone seriously argue the point?

Frankly, with the approach that the Brighamite (or perhaps Woodruffite) church has taken to doctrine and revelation, there never could have been a great apostasy. If Brigham young's completely erroneous ideas about the Godhead (with Adam at its head), blood atonement and the status of the "negro" weren't enough to throw the LDS church into apostasy, than neither was the Council of Nicaea enough to throw the Catholic Church into apostasy.

[_Drifting]

Frankly, with the approach that the Brighamite (or perhaps Woodruffite) church has taken to doctrine and revelation, there never could have been a great apostasy. If Brigham young's completely erroneous ideas about the Godhead (with Adam at its head), blood atonement and the status of the "negro" weren't enough to throw the LDS church into apostasy, than neither was the Council of Nicaea enough to throw the Catholic Church into apostasy.

^This is called not having your cake and eat it...

[_hatersinmyward]

Which Bible verse references the secret handshakes that's are required to gain enterance into heaven?