Did Elder Holland open a can of worms?

[_cinepro]

I have always enjoyed hearing Elder Holland speak, but a few things struck me about his talk.

First, his initial argument for the specificity of Revelation 22:18-19 ("don't add to this book or you'll be cursed"), he argued that the "vast majority" of biblical scholars agree that this warning applies only to the Book of Revelation. While this isn't a new argument (and I agree with it), are there other things the "vast majority" of biblical scholars might agree on that LDS reject outright? The first two things that come to mind would be the mythical status of Job, and the multiple-authorship of Isaiah. But as time goes on, I'm sure other problems will arise with disparities between the LDS version of things, and what the biblical scholars are saying. Are we going to have to consistently accept those things that Biblical scholars agree on, or do we get to pick and chose, just as he accuses Christians of doing?

Second, he claims that the label "Christian" was applied so early in Christianity (pre-Bible), that we shouldn't be bound by modern "Christian" attempts to narrow the definition. This isn't a new argument from me (it got me suspended on MADB), but it only reinforces my belief that any group that believes Joseph Smith was a Prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God is worthy of the label "Mormon", since this label predates any narrower doctrines or traditions modern LDS would use.

FOX News has been using the label "Mormon" all day as they cover the Texas compound situation, and I'm sure the PR guys in Salt Lake are going nuclear, but I can't help but think that the Texas group really are Mormons, in the truest sense of the word. And even though the SLC branch of the Church stopped selling their brand of crazy 100 years ago, it doesn't give us the right to limit the use of the word when applied to others who believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon (more than us, in some cases).

[_bcspace]

Second, he claims that the label "Christian" was applied so early in Christianity (pre-Bible), that we shouldn't be bound by modern "Christian" attempts to narrow the definition. This isn't a new argument from me (it got me suspended on MADB), but it only reinforces my belief that any group that believes Joseph Smith was a Prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God is worthy of the label "Mormon", since this label predates any narrower doctrines or traditions modern LDS would use.

I generally agree with this sentiment here, but I think it overshoots Holland's point.

[_sunstoned]

It seems the PR department wants the term Christian to be used in the broad term. Anyone who believes and follows Christ is a Christian. I agree. Extending this logic, then anyone who believes and follows the Book of Mormon is a Mormon. This makes sense, but seeing BY type polygamy playing out on national TV has got to be a PR nightmare for the Church.

[_quaker]

I'm in agreement that the Mormon title should be used by entities that are branches of 'Mormonism'. The only problem is when they don't distinguish the bigger LDS church from the smaller (and a little more off the wall) FLDS Church.

Presbytarians are differentiated from Methodists, but they are both Christians. Mormons are differentiated from the previously mentioned, but they are still, sometimes, Christians. FLDS and LDS should be differentiated, especially when their reporting makes one group seem like terrorists.

[_moksha]

For what it is worth, there are different types of Baptists, Lutherans and even Catholics.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Cinepro,

"..but I can't help but think that the Texas group really are Mormons, in the truest sense of the word. And even though the SLC branch of the Church stopped selling their brand of crazy 100 years ago, it doesn't give us the right to limit the use of the word when applied to others who believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon (more than us, in some cases)."

Totally agree. The FLDS are much closer to the original church Joseph Smith set up than the LDS, and in my opinion, the LDS church does not have the right to decide who does or does not get to use a word to describe themselves.

Personally, if I were running the PR dept (smile) I would have long ago dropped the "Mormon" title altogether but that is just me. ;-) Actually, If I recall correctly, they tried at one time but members didn't like the idea. Oh well...

~dancer~

[_cinepro]

Maybe the Church should start calling us "Salt Lake Mormons". We could shorten it to "Smormon".

[_John Larsen]

I like Mahayana Mormons (SLC) and Hinayana Mormons (Colorado City/Texas)

[_the road to hana]

This isn't a new argument from me (it got me suspended on MADB), but it only reinforces my belief that any group that believes Joseph Smith was a Prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God is worthy of the label "Mormon", since this label predates any narrower doctrines or traditions modern LDS would use.

FOX News has been using the label "Mormon" all day as they cover the Texas compound situation, and I'm sure the PR guys in Salt Lake are going nuclear, but I can't help but think that the Texas group really are Mormons, in the truest sense of the word. And even though the SLC branch of the Church stopped selling their brand of crazy 100 years ago, it doesn't give us the right to limit the use of the word when applied to others who believe in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon (more than us, in some cases).

Agree completely.

I note the press release on the Church's official website claims no connection whatsoever with the LDS Church, which is misleading to news organizations. Obviously, they share a common heritage.

I would argue that any "Restoration" church that descends from the church Joseph Smith organized can in loosest terms be referred to as "Mormon," if one were to use the same logic the LDS Church wants applied to them regarding the Christian heritage and tradition.

[_Scottie]

When did the term Mormon first start being used to describe this church? Was it used internally first, or externally?