How are the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints *not* Mormons? They follow the Book of Mormon, they believe that Joseph Smith was a divinely inspired prophet, they cling deeply to the americanist heresy ,*and* their practices are a hell of a lot closer to what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wrote as What Thou Must Do To Get Into Heaven than the "normal" Mormons.
That's like saying that Catholics aren't Christians.
"The sect is a rogue branch of the Mormon church,"
No, it's saying that protestants arn't Christians. Possibly instead saying gnostics as not being Christians. They are heretics from the mainstream, regardless if their are "more true to the source material" or not.
That I did not know. Neat. Thinking it over, gnostics are a poor example due to the relative demographics. The ten thousand practitioners makes the protestant comparison more accurate.
or rather like saying Protestants aren't Catholics, if the sect is a rogue branch that are heretics from the mainstream. There just isn't a word to encompass all followers of Smith like there is for all followers of Christ (Christians. So Smithians?).
(Yes, I know LDS follows the teachings of Christ, is a Christian church. It's a macrocosmic analogy.
We call shiites and sunnis "muslims" both of them and they have no love for one another. When you consider how the divisions in the Mormon religion began much like how some in the Muslim faith followed Abu Bakari, it's hard to defend not being categorized. So if you're categorizing I suppose you could call these guys "Mormons".
Several years back, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints encouraged we members to no longer refer to OURSELVES as Mormons. I can't help but wonder if splinter groups like this one that get lumped in with us have become the basis for such requests.
Because fundamentally, pun intended, they're just a little more honest about what the prophet commands than you are, and they're all members of the same Latter Day Saints movement.
The reason you, and other Mormons, have been encouraged not to use the term "Mormon" is that it's become a descriptive term, based solely on what the Mormon church teaches, that is considered derogatory. Only time will tell if it becomes a truly derogatory term like "Mohammedan" or if it stays a properly descriptive term like "Baptist" or "Creationist".
#1: Polygamy, literal ownership of the family by the patriarch, and arranged "marriage" of your female property, complete with "reassigning" of wives to other men when the first ones fall out of favour, though, are all right there.
Which leads to underage brides assigned to strangers and then told they have a duty to obey him, including sleeping with him.
It's not part of the doctrine. The doctrine simply enables it.
#2: I wasn't saying that child-rape was any more a part of Latter Day Saints theology than it's a part of Catholic theology. However, I'm saying that this group *do* rape children, and that this group *are* Latter Day Saints.
Being a child rapist doesn't make you any less a Catholic, or a Mormon, and when you come out with "but they're not REAL Mormons", you run head-on into the problem that they follow Joseph Smith's LDS teachings far more closely than you do.
Even though Joseph Smith was the founder of our religion and received revelations to practice polygamy, this was overridden by the revelations of prophets who proclaimed that the practice be discontinued. As you know, that still stands to this day. Taking this into account, we also believe that if any of the past prophets were alive today and observing the church as it is, they would concur with the decisions of contemporary prophets seeing as they are lead by the same deity.
I don't explain this because I expect you to believe it. Setting any particular faith aside for a moment, speaking on the subject of ANY prophet lead religion, why have a prophet at all if God is going to not have something new to say once in a while. The whole concept of "continuing revelation" is that it allows a deity to steer a religion in a different direction even from one day to the next should said deity choose.
Now Weezy, if you were perhaps a member of some "Mormon" based theology and were criticizing my LDS faith based on changes we had made to doctrines you clung to, then it would make sense for an argument that we've somehow "gone astray" from God's true path. But being an objective critic, it seems a bit odd to criticize the "honesty" of another religion that believes its chosen prophets have lead a church in a different direction. Arguing anything faith-based is a pretty pointless activity to begin with but this whole "honesty" thing seems like a bit of a ridiculous idea.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-06 02:12 pm (UTC)Don't make me defend these idiots again.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-06 03:53 pm (UTC)That's like saying that Catholics aren't Christians.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-06 07:59 pm (UTC)No, it's saying that protestants arn't Christians. Possibly instead saying gnostics as not being Christians. They are heretics from the mainstream, regardless if their are "more true to the source material" or not.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-06 08:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-06 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-06 09:50 pm (UTC)(Yes, I know LDS follows the teachings of Christ, is a Christian church. It's a macrocosmic analogy.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-07 02:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-07 02:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-07 01:30 am (UTC)Several years back, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints encouraged we members to no longer refer to OURSELVES as Mormons. I can't help but wonder if splinter groups like this one that get lumped in with us have become the basis for such requests.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-07 02:13 am (UTC)Because fundamentally, pun intended, they're just a little more honest about what the prophet commands than you are, and they're all members of the same Latter Day Saints movement.
The reason you, and other Mormons, have been encouraged not to use the term "Mormon" is that it's become a descriptive term, based solely on what the Mormon church teaches, that is considered derogatory. Only time will tell if it becomes a truly derogatory term like "Mohammedan" or if it stays a properly descriptive term like "Baptist" or "Creationist".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-07 04:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-07 02:01 pm (UTC)Which leads to underage brides assigned to strangers and then told they have a duty to obey him, including sleeping with him.
It's not part of the doctrine. The doctrine simply enables it.
#2: I wasn't saying that child-rape was any more a part of Latter Day Saints theology than it's a part of Catholic theology. However, I'm saying that this group *do* rape children, and that this group *are* Latter Day Saints.
Being a child rapist doesn't make you any less a Catholic, or a Mormon, and when you come out with "but they're not REAL Mormons", you run head-on into the problem that they follow Joseph Smith's LDS teachings far more closely than you do.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-08 01:57 am (UTC)I don't explain this because I expect you to believe it. Setting any particular faith aside for a moment, speaking on the subject of ANY prophet lead religion, why have a prophet at all if God is going to not have something new to say once in a while. The whole concept of "continuing revelation" is that it allows a deity to steer a religion in a different direction even from one day to the next should said deity choose.
Now Weezy, if you were perhaps a member of some "Mormon" based theology and were criticizing my LDS faith based on changes we had made to doctrines you clung to, then it would make sense for an argument that we've somehow "gone astray" from God's true path. But being an objective critic, it seems a bit odd to criticize the "honesty" of another religion that believes its chosen prophets have lead a church in a different direction. Arguing anything faith-based is a pretty pointless activity to begin with but this whole "honesty" thing seems like a bit of a ridiculous idea.