FLDS Fight Back and Say "WE ARE Mormons!"

[_Boaz & Lidia]

The Church has responded:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3723241&pid=1

*shrugs* Does not change the public perception of


Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy
Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon
Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy
Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon
Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy
Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon
Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy
Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon
Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy
Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon
Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy
Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon
Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy
Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon=Polygamy=Mormon

Here's a thought: Let them be the Mormons, do a PR aboutface and say "LDS are not Mormon!!"

[_The Dude]

The issue of nomenclature is part of the ongoing divorce process.

The LDS are right to want to avoid confusion with "apostate" sects, and the FLDS are right to want to define themselves and not be bullied around by a bigger sect. Since each group sees itself as the true, and the other as the apostate, they both feel possessive about the original name. Both groups derive from Joseph Smith's "restored" faith, so think the way to save face would be for one of them to come up with a new name, ascribe it to "revelation", and forge ahead. So which of them is guided by enough revelation to come up with the new name first... hmmm?

[_Mike Reed]

I too understand the LDS Church's concern about the confusion that comes from calling FLDS Mormon. But there is a major problem with their method for trying to resolve this concern: they are being downright hypocritical. It is hypocritical to demand that only the LDS Church should exclusively be called "Mormon", and then in the next breath express offence when people don't inclusively accept Latter-day Saints as Christian.

I can't believe the "Brethren" are being so bone-headed while dealing with this. This is unreal!

[_truth dancer]

Calling themselves Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints isn't using the word Mormon so I don't understand what the big deal is here nevertheless, here are a couple of new name suggestions for the FLDS...

True Followers of Joseph Smith

True Followers of the Book of Mormon

The Original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

The True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Book of Mormon Believers

The True Disciples of Joseph Smith

Original Mormonism

The Fullness of Mormonism

The Fullness of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ in These Latter Days

True Mormonism

Latter Day Saint's True Mormonism

Regarding the response from the LDS church, they are confusing the issue by pretending they have nothing to do with polygamy. Of course Mormons have something to do with polygamy and today pretty much anyone who has heard of the church knows this. So, for the LDS church to deny it gets people confused.

I think the LDS church would do much better to admit the common origin, admit the doctrine, and show how the FLDS split away rather than continue on with their double speak.

~dancer~

[_TAK]

The issue of nomenclature is part of the ongoing divorce process.

The LDS are right to want to avoid confusion with "apostate" sects, and the FLDS are right to want to define themselves and not be bullied around by a bigger sect. Since each group sees itself as the true, and the other as the apostate, they both feel possessive about the original name. Both groups derive from Joseph Smith's "restored" faith, so think the way to save face would be for one of them to come up with a new name, ascribe it to "revelation", and forge ahead. So which of them is guided by enough revelation to come up with the new name first... hmmm?

it all strikes me as the guy in the double wide trailer making fun of the guy in the single wide..

[_Joey]

This is the best example of how hypocritical the LDS Church and their apologists are.

They fight to declare themselves to be accepted as "christians", claiming they believe in Christ. Yet they will not extend the same courtesy nor argument to the FLDS claim of being Mormon because they believe in the Book of Mormon!

[Doctor Steuss]

This is the best example of how hypocritical the LDS Church and their apologists are.

They fight to declare themselves to be accepted as "christians", claiming they believe in Christ. Yet they will not extend the same courtesy nor argument to the FLDS claim of being Mormon because they believe in the Book of Mormon!

For a long time we have criticized the church for it's whining that the FLDS aren't Mormons, and a few posters over on MADB have countered by saying the FLDS don't even call themselves Mormon. Hence, they say, it really is just a media issue. Well so much for that defense!

Smac97 started a thread about this on MADB.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =0&start=0

Lots of sour grapes over there, especially from Smac, who just can't back down from his sematic lawyering and admit that this is very much the same as the "LDS aren't Christian" issue.

But there are also a few LDS posters who accept that FLDS are also "Mormons".

Someone posted this:

Being a former Jehovah's Witness, I have an interesting story in religion to the names of new religions.

Before they were called Jehovah's Witnesses, they were called 'Bible Students'. This name held from the late 1800's through the 1920's. Late in the 20's many people began to heavily break from the movement, forming their own 'Bible Student' organizations that had similar names. There was the 'Dawn Bible Students', the 'Chicago Bible Students as well as others. The idea was that they could capitalize on using a similar name.

So, in the early 1930's the leader of the original Bible Students movement changed the name of his religion to 'Jehovah's Witnesses, so as to be a unique entity. So far there have been no similar names break of groups, but they will eventually come.

I think this is interesting because it shows that it isn't always the little breakaway sects that have to change their name. The big mother sect can take the initiative as well.

Personally I think the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" is unwieldy. This might be a good time for the big Church to get a new name, or at least form a committee to prayerfully pound out a list of possibilities. Monson needs a legacy and this could be it. There's nothing to fear for a church guided by revelation, right?

[_truth dancer]

Several years ago, I noticed a portrait of Brigham Young in the Smithsonian and on the name plate it stated he was the prophet of the Latter Day Saint Church. Being the believing member at the time, I felt it should have been correctly written, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (I thought I could teach the Smithsonian experts something... LOL)!

Evidently, according to a historian, there was a time the early church actually did go by that name. It was news to me.

So, yes, the church could come up with a new name. They could rename the Book of Mormon while they are at it.

in my opinion, the word "Mormon" describes the movement started by Joseph Smith, and those who embrace the Book of Mormon as scripture. This would include all followers of Joseph Smith. I don't know why the mainstream LDS church thinks it should be otherwise. Kind of weird in my opinion.

They don't want to be called Mormon, but don't want anyone else to be called Mormon either... or something.

~dancer~

[_mms]

Hey, I thought we could not linnk from this board to MADB. But I just did from The Dude's link above.

[_The Dude]

Hey, I thought we could not linnk from this board to MADB. But I just did from The Dude's link above.

Sshhh, don't tell anybody.

by the way, I fixed the quote from "olympus" in my earlier post. It didn't make sense without the last two lines.