Reader comments
Pro-polygamy coalition takes issue with LDS objection to 'fundamentalist'
210 comments | Read story
Lets Simplify | 7:41 p.m. July 9, 2008
President Gordon B. Hinckley, October conference, 1998: "There is no such
thing as a 'Mormon Fundamentalist.' It is a contradiction to use the
two words together." He went on to state that Official Declaration 1 was a
revelation to Wilford Woodruff.
A revelation that is given to the President of the Church stands as the official teaching, position, and doctrine of the Church. Even more so, OD 1 was ratified and accepted by the Church as a whole when it was presented.
The Church is simply seeking to have the media clearly make a difference between the Church and others who claim to be off shoots of the main body. As Pres. Hinckley stated - there is no such thing. A person either follows the teachings of the Church. There is no gray zone.
A revelation that is given to the President of the Church stands as the official teaching, position, and doctrine of the Church. Even more so, OD 1 was ratified and accepted by the Church as a whole when it was presented.
The Church is simply seeking to have the media clearly make a difference between the Church and others who claim to be off shoots of the main body. As Pres. Hinckley stated - there is no such thing. A person either follows the teachings of the Church. There is no gray zone.
Tammy | 7:45 p.m. July 9, 2008
I really hate reading all the FLDS blogs, because it seems like all the
polygamist demons come crawling out from beneath their floorboards, who all
support this very sick practice of woman abuse. However, there are many good men
who do not care for this kind of wickedness.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 8:18 p.m. July 9, 2008
As was said I don't think the LDS Church should "complain and
whine" it's beneath us. This gives us the oportunity to teach people
who we are and what we believe. I think maybe its time for a multi-million
dollar TV campaign to educate the country and the world. They should use this as
an opportunity to teach rather than act like liberals and complain about what
others say.
Phillip | 8:34 p.m. July 9, 2008
I dont see why Poligamy is thought of in such ill terms, Certainly it is better
than devorce, which is more than common in our culture. How common is devorce in
FLDS? Not very common I would think.
Outsider | 8:44 p.m. July 9, 2008
To:Krudd " Why do anti Mormons read the DN?"
I am not LDS. I love reading the DN because I find Utah and the Mormon Culture fascinating. I have my belief system. I would never publicly ridicule your Faith, although I strongly disagree with your doctrine, as you would with the doctrine of my Faith. But do you want only LDS members to read and comment here? What you call "anti" may just be an opinion or point of observation different from your own. Would you prefer to hear only those with whom you agree? That would mean that you are not open to anyone else's opinion. I respect your Faith. Please respect my freedom to make honest inquiry. Thank you.
I am not LDS. I love reading the DN because I find Utah and the Mormon Culture fascinating. I have my belief system. I would never publicly ridicule your Faith, although I strongly disagree with your doctrine, as you would with the doctrine of my Faith. But do you want only LDS members to read and comment here? What you call "anti" may just be an opinion or point of observation different from your own. Would you prefer to hear only those with whom you agree? That would mean that you are not open to anyone else's opinion. I respect your Faith. Please respect my freedom to make honest inquiry. Thank you.
Follow the Present-day Prophet | 8:51 p.m. July 9, 2008
What if polygamy wasn't discontinued 118 years ago??
Where would the Church be today?? It would be breaking the law and Dis-Obeying Article of Faith
#11.
Wilford Woodruff wrestled with this doctrine and its
problems immensely in 1890. It's true that the Feds were bearing down in America, (the land of "Freedom of Religion") during the late 1800's. The statehood thing is just a piece of that picture. The Feds had threatened to confiscate all Church property and
dissolve the organization (in the land of the
Freee).
The mainstream LDS Church really grew after dropping the polygamy. What would we have today if it hadn't stopped?? The issue of Joseph Smith receiving revelation on this or not, (IS IN THE ETERNITIES) between Joseph and his Maker (God).
If Joseph S. goofed in his intrepation of what most agree DID happen with many of the prophets of the Old Testament, then again, It's between Joseph and
God!!
It's our opportunity to take advantage of following the Prophet of today. Thomas S. Monson has lived
a good and noble life. He's a good role model.
We Should be Grateful for a man of his Integrity!!
Thank God for a Living Prophet.
Where would the Church be today?? It would be breaking the law and Dis-Obeying Article of Faith
#11.
Wilford Woodruff wrestled with this doctrine and its
problems immensely in 1890. It's true that the Feds were bearing down in America, (the land of "Freedom of Religion") during the late 1800's. The statehood thing is just a piece of that picture. The Feds had threatened to confiscate all Church property and
dissolve the organization (in the land of the
Freee).
The mainstream LDS Church really grew after dropping the polygamy. What would we have today if it hadn't stopped?? The issue of Joseph Smith receiving revelation on this or not, (IS IN THE ETERNITIES) between Joseph and his Maker (God).
If Joseph S. goofed in his intrepation of what most agree DID happen with many of the prophets of the Old Testament, then again, It's between Joseph and
God!!
It's our opportunity to take advantage of following the Prophet of today. Thomas S. Monson has lived
a good and noble life. He's a good role model.
We Should be Grateful for a man of his Integrity!!
Thank God for a Living Prophet.
James M. | 8:55 p.m. July 9, 2008
To Anonymous , Go see your Bishop and perhaps have your membership dropped. You
are on your way out BUD! You are not following LDS standards or the "True
Prophet". To tell you the truth-- I really doubt you are LDS.
Article of Faith #12 | 9:03 p.m. July 9, 2008
Sorry, in the "Follow the Present-day Prophet"
posted just moments ago, I made a mistake. It's Article #12 that talks about "being subject to kings, presidents,... and honoring and obeying and sustaining the law".
Sorry again for getting that "detail" wrong. Did memorize the Articles of Faith as a kid in Primary when around 10 years old. It was 110 degrees today
and was outside a lot today. I guess the ole brain cells had a little "synapse" problem in remembering the exact #'s of the great Articles of Faith ...getting older I suppose...
posted just moments ago, I made a mistake. It's Article #12 that talks about "being subject to kings, presidents,... and honoring and obeying and sustaining the law".
Sorry again for getting that "detail" wrong. Did memorize the Articles of Faith as a kid in Primary when around 10 years old. It was 110 degrees today
and was outside a lot today. I guess the ole brain cells had a little "synapse" problem in remembering the exact #'s of the great Articles of Faith ...getting older I suppose...
Anonymous | 9:12 p.m. July 9, 2008
What's the use of having a living prophet if you aren't going to
listen to him? If he gives a proclamation that God wants to rescind polygamy
for a long while, what's so difficult about that? Don't you think
that a merciful God who wants us to obey the laws of the land, would be wise to
instruct the saints thus when the government made the laws against polygamy?
Not only are these polygamous groups going against the law of the land, but
against God.
Anonymous | 9:17 p.m. July 9, 2008
If you do a little more research, you will find that Joseph Smith did not want
to introduce or practice this principle. You will also find that the marrying
age was much lower back then but most of the wives were older maiden ladies who
didn't have a chance to marry and were rescued so to speak because they
didn't have as many options to work. You will also find that it was an odd
custom for many people who were married to someone else to seal themselves to a
church leader, but have no other contact with them, until someone said...please
seal yourselves to your own fathers and kin and not to the church leaders.
Silly | 9:22 p.m. July 9, 2008
Will the real Mormon church please stand up?
Clifton | 9:28 p.m. July 9, 2008
There is no such thing s a "Mormon Church" anymore than there is a
"Fundamentalist Mormon" However, the Main stream and many others take
delight in mocking Church and all it stands for. Someone show me where there
is a handbook where "Fundamentalism" is a means of worshiping Jesus
Christ, moreover, please enlighten us where in the Doctrine and Covenants there
is any reference at all to some Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints!
John C. | 9:43 p.m. July 9, 2008
Wow...from the comments it is very clear that people think they know what the
LDS church teaches and what it dosn't, even among some members. I would
say to those of you who are members its time to stop sitting on the side lines
and really start studding what the churches doctrines are and get a strong
testimony. Because (and this is my own opion) the time is coming when the peace
we have enjoyed is going to end and you can no longer sit on the side lines and
watch. Comments such as these are nothing as to what is coming. Again this is
my opion and perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut.
Carol | 9:46 p.m. July 9, 2008
Oh LDS Inc., 'Ye blind guides who strain at a gnat, and swallow a
camel.' (KJV of the Bible) You are so far removed from the true teachings
of Jesus, which is the biggest irony of all.
A true Mormon | 9:45 p.m. July 9, 2008
I for one am looking forward to the revelation that returns us to practicing the
principle of the true and everlasting covenant.
I'm Confused | 9:48 p.m. July 9, 2008
There are lots of LDS posts that say polygamy is a terrible thing, one poster
called it woman abuse. Does that mean your founding prophet abused women? It
doesn't seem like it could have been a great thing pre-1890 and a horrible
abuse of women and children now. It's either good or bad, you can't
put a time limit on it to suit your current needs.
Drop It and Feed the Poor | 10:21 p.m. July 9, 2008
All this WORRY over the image of the church serves to hurt the LDS church far
more than it helps. All these public relations gyrations aren't changing
anyone's views.
Fray Jumper | 10:33 p.m. July 9, 2008
I love it... as a member of the LDS church, I love how church members are
"tossed to and fro, from every wind of doctrine," getting tangled in
words that may have no meaning in the long run.
Some LDS embrace polygamy because its in the very DNA of the LDS church, and others curse its existence, and say it has no place in the destiny of the theology.
I'm in the camp that says we stop apologizing, and quit denying that the Lord said to Joseph... (paraphrasing) You asked.. here's your answer, and now that you know, you must do.
Now... I wouldn't ever want to live under the principle (can you imagine the hassel?) but to distance the principle as "an embarrassment" is a dishonor to the thousands of our forefathers who fought and died (even killed) for the principle.
As far as I'm concerned, we're getting more strange and peculiar every year... and I'm not ashamed at being a member of the Lords "strange and peculiar" church.
So... who cares what we're called. Or what they're called. Why not try being nicer to the FLDS, or other people who believe 110% of what we believe.
Some LDS embrace polygamy because its in the very DNA of the LDS church, and others curse its existence, and say it has no place in the destiny of the theology.
I'm in the camp that says we stop apologizing, and quit denying that the Lord said to Joseph... (paraphrasing) You asked.. here's your answer, and now that you know, you must do.
Now... I wouldn't ever want to live under the principle (can you imagine the hassel?) but to distance the principle as "an embarrassment" is a dishonor to the thousands of our forefathers who fought and died (even killed) for the principle.
As far as I'm concerned, we're getting more strange and peculiar every year... and I'm not ashamed at being a member of the Lords "strange and peculiar" church.
So... who cares what we're called. Or what they're called. Why not try being nicer to the FLDS, or other people who believe 110% of what we believe.
Fundamentalist? | 10:47 p.m. July 9, 2008
When did straying from the truth become Fundamental?
James | 10:50 p.m. July 9, 2008
Charles:
Polygamy groups can believe all they want that the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy but they have no priesthood keys. According to Doctrine and Covenants 107 and 112, it is impossible for the "polygamy" groups to claim any Apostolic authority.
It's not about "orthodoxy" in the LDS Church its about priesthood keys. Go and ask your "polygamy group" friends and they can't point to a "restoration" or a "Apostolic" body or quorum that has priesthood keys.
Do a little research and you'll find that they all stem from the same break off that wasn't issued any keys or authority.
Polygamy groups rejected the exercise of the Quorum of the 12 in favor of holding on to a practice.
I think it's ironic that "polygamy groups" claim that the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy when the LDS Church publishes the Book of Mormon and is responsible for taking it to the world, a fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecy.
It seems to me that if they were the "true" Church, THEY would hold the Book of Mormon copyright and THEY would be taking the Book of Mormon to the world. That's reasonable.
Polygamy groups can believe all they want that the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy but they have no priesthood keys. According to Doctrine and Covenants 107 and 112, it is impossible for the "polygamy" groups to claim any Apostolic authority.
It's not about "orthodoxy" in the LDS Church its about priesthood keys. Go and ask your "polygamy group" friends and they can't point to a "restoration" or a "Apostolic" body or quorum that has priesthood keys.
Do a little research and you'll find that they all stem from the same break off that wasn't issued any keys or authority.
Polygamy groups rejected the exercise of the Quorum of the 12 in favor of holding on to a practice.
I think it's ironic that "polygamy groups" claim that the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy when the LDS Church publishes the Book of Mormon and is responsible for taking it to the world, a fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecy.
It seems to me that if they were the "true" Church, THEY would hold the Book of Mormon copyright and THEY would be taking the Book of Mormon to the world. That's reasonable.
AZLDSguy | 10:53 p.m. July 9, 2008
Let us make this very elementary � the FLDS Church has no
basis to say, �Call us Mormon�. They
do not follow LDS Doctrine; they do not follow LDS Leadership. They do not
follow LDS teachings or policies.
The closest definition is they are a distant sect. For them to say they are Mormon by definition, is liken to the Protestants of old saying we disavow the Pope and all Catholic teachings and doctrines but we still want to be called Catholic.
The Catholics, Evangelists, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, Protestants and so on. Have all accepted their social labels so now should the FLDS as� well let�s let history sort that one out. For now, the Fundamentalist Polygamists label is close enough.
The closest definition is they are a distant sect. For them to say they are Mormon by definition, is liken to the Protestants of old saying we disavow the Pope and all Catholic teachings and doctrines but we still want to be called Catholic.
The Catholics, Evangelists, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, Protestants and so on. Have all accepted their social labels so now should the FLDS as� well let�s let history sort that one out. For now, the Fundamentalist Polygamists label is close enough.
Mr. Jeff's brother | 10:56 p.m. July 9, 2008
Leave Warren out of this! He is ill.
What? | 11:02 p.m. July 9, 2008
To say there fundamental is not the subject when did lies become fundamental
that is a big misunderstanding, they rejected being fundamental
Lynn | 11:06 p.m. July 9, 2008
If someone works for Coca Cola and leaves the company to make another cola
product, he cannot call it "Coke" or "Coca Cola" or
"New Coke" no matter how long he was with the company nor why he
left.
The word cola is generic. It doesn't begin with a capital letter.
The word Mormon is a proper noun, because it's a name of a person, and a group of people.
The LDS church was established for a long time before some groups decided to break away and call themselves some derivative name.
Too many others are still confused by the use of those other names. (See 'They're all Mormons to me.')
Polygamy is not for me, thank you. But I can see why some would be drawn to the ideal of it.
The trouble is not so much the ideal as the reality.
It's one thing for consenting adults to adopt this lifestyle. Probably no worse than living together without being married, (which I don't condone)
but the "marriages" of under-age girls to these older men, the evictions of the young men, the abuse and control, the private property control. etc., seem to be the most objectional issues, besides illegality.
The word cola is generic. It doesn't begin with a capital letter.
The word Mormon is a proper noun, because it's a name of a person, and a group of people.
The LDS church was established for a long time before some groups decided to break away and call themselves some derivative name.
Too many others are still confused by the use of those other names. (See 'They're all Mormons to me.')
Polygamy is not for me, thank you. But I can see why some would be drawn to the ideal of it.
The trouble is not so much the ideal as the reality.
It's one thing for consenting adults to adopt this lifestyle. Probably no worse than living together without being married, (which I don't condone)
but the "marriages" of under-age girls to these older men, the evictions of the young men, the abuse and control, the private property control. etc., seem to be the most objectional issues, besides illegality.
Alittleclarityplease | 11:08 p.m. July 9, 2008
Yes you are confused. There are many differences between early LDS polygamy and
the practices of the FLDS. For one, young girls were not essentially bred for
the purpose, nor were they forced into marriages against their wills in the
early LDS Church as they are in FLDS. Two, young girls could legally marry in
the 19th century where they cannot now. It was cultural and economic thing.
No, it does not mean our founding prophet abused women any more than Abraham, Issac, Jacob or a number of other Biblical prophets did.
No, it does not mean our founding prophet abused women any more than Abraham, Issac, Jacob or a number of other Biblical prophets did.
Hal N. | 11:15 p.m. July 9, 2008
if the LDS church still practices and believes in polygamy,-- please opt me out!
If I ever find that to be true i'd be gone in a flash!
Dear Carol | 11:19 p.m. July 9, 2008
Also from the KJV -
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Sounds like them crazy LDS may have something working for them. They still have a prophet.
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Sounds like them crazy LDS may have something working for them. They still have a prophet.
Distinction | 11:33 p.m. July 9, 2008
The fact is that it is about distinguishing the groups. My family back east
heard the headlines and thought that this referred to the LDS Church. There
needs to be a clear distinction, which there is. There are members of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or "The Mormon Church" and
there are members of other organizations who have separated themselves from The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or "The Mormon Church".
Its an issue of protecting and defining yourself and your organization rather
than being defined by others.
Nonmember | 11:34 p.m. July 9, 2008
You polygamy folks seriously need to get some mental counseling. Polygamy is
very cruel and immoral. You polygamist groups don't need to use god for
this evil practice, which will eventually be your condemnation in the end.
Coveting many woman to have sex with is very destructive, abusive, unholy and
very ungodly. God knows the filth and intent of a evil mans heart.
Lynn | 11:32 p.m. July 9, 2008
It isn't that Mormons (the real ones) are perfect. We aren't. But to
have those issues of often forced under-age, not legally-recognized-marriages,
eviction of young men, forced break-ups of marriages, with families and property
given to other men, private property issues, abusive control, etc, be the
hallmarks of many of these polygamist sects - well, who would want them to be
confused with your own church?
Aside from the practice of polygamy itself, which happens to be illegal.
Anyone ought to understand that, even the most rabid anti-Mormon.
I think that as gay marriage is legalized in more states, the issue of the legality of polygamy is going to come up and that sooner or later, it will be legalized, at least in some states. Hopefully not here.
If polygamists are smart, they will clean up their acts and resolve the issues I named at the beginning of this letter. Because I think that whether or not we approve, polygamy between consenting adults will eventually become legal.
And I hope that at some point they will create their own names which do not confuse them with the current LDS Church.
Aside from the practice of polygamy itself, which happens to be illegal.
Anyone ought to understand that, even the most rabid anti-Mormon.
I think that as gay marriage is legalized in more states, the issue of the legality of polygamy is going to come up and that sooner or later, it will be legalized, at least in some states. Hopefully not here.
If polygamists are smart, they will clean up their acts and resolve the issues I named at the beginning of this letter. Because I think that whether or not we approve, polygamy between consenting adults will eventually become legal.
And I hope that at some point they will create their own names which do not confuse them with the current LDS Church.
Just a word | 11:35 p.m. July 9, 2008
the word "Mormon" is about as close to a trademark as you can get for
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).
As such it is implied that the word Mormon represents them. This is common knowledge and has been used in this manner for many many yhears by everyone on this planet.
This wuld be like tryhing to nickname a soda product, Fundamentalist Pepsi. I do believe there would be a law suit.
But the point isn't about a law suit, but rather whom the name tolls for.
As such it is implied that the word Mormon represents them. This is common knowledge and has been used in this manner for many many yhears by everyone on this planet.
This wuld be like tryhing to nickname a soda product, Fundamentalist Pepsi. I do believe there would be a law suit.
But the point isn't about a law suit, but rather whom the name tolls for.
Dumbfounded | 11:46 p.m. July 9, 2008
I can settle this. In order for me to become a member, I had to be baptized,
with the proper authority.
Ask any FLDS to show you their baptism certificate with the proper authority having signed it.
That's what I thought! The only part of the religion they want is the polygamy part and they perverted that!
Ask any FLDS to show you their baptism certificate with the proper authority having signed it.
That's what I thought! The only part of the religion they want is the polygamy part and they perverted that!
D&C 42:18-24 | 11:47 p.m. July 9, 2008
How could a person write, to explain a fundamental fact, explain why there
against polygamy, therefore be a fundamental fact.
If the polygamists are called FLDS how could fundamental be indifference to being fundamental?
If the polygamists are called FLDS how could fundamental be indifference to being fundamental?
Lasser Zay Saint | 12:16 a.m. July 10, 2008
I gotta say, I'm pretty embarrassed by the poor grammar, spelling, and just
flat-out wrong words used by most of my fellow Mormons. I couldn't care
less about who wants to call whom whatever. Those FLDS are hilarious. Have you
seen their clothing line? I don't know about polygamy. I've never
known anyone who has more than one wife (unless they were just plain cheating).
What I do know is that I'll be at church this Sunday. I think the LDS
church is the greatest organization to ever exist. Booyah!
A Fundamentalist Mormon | 12:21 a.m. July 10, 2008
While the LDS church is busy pulling teeth trying to distinguish themselves from
us, many of us are praying for them. We acknowledge that the church is doing a
great work by taking the gospel to the world, we love the church, we are only
trying to keep these doctrines alive, because we follow Joseph Smith, if the
"living prophet" contradicts his teachings. God did not reveal that
polygamy should be done away with. No where in the scriptures does it say this.
He does not change. We would hope that the LDS church would pray for us as
well. But we know not to expect it.
Who are Christians? | 12:23 a.m. July 10, 2008
It never bothers me for other people or churches to say I am not a Christian. I
don't even argue with them because I reserve the right to define my own
religion. Usually the conversation goes something like this: "Hello, my
name is Jim." No, your name is not Jim, you are deceived, your real name is
Bob. "Well, I am very sure my name is Jim and not Bob." No, it
isn't, that guy over there said your name is really Bob and I agree with
him. "Well, you can call me anything you want, but my name really is
Jim." Absurd to argue with people like that, isn't it?
Re: Russ | 12:42 a.m. July 10, 2008
You are so right! I almost spit my grape juice all over my computer screen when
I read your post and started laughing! I'm still laughing! did not, did
too! too funny!
EXTEND DEFINITION | 12:44 a.m. July 10, 2008
=
MAKE AN EXTENDED NEW DISTINCTION OF:
(X) MODERN LDS MORMON CHURCH
(X) "TRADITIONALIST LDS-FLDS MORMON CHURCH"
INSTEAD OF FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS
JUST LIKE
(X) MODERN CATHOLIC CHURCH
(X) TRADITIONALIST CATHOLIC CHURCH
INSTEAD OF CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALISTS
DISCLAIMERS AS PREVISOUSLY STATED
SIGNED: RECKIPS
=
==
MAKE AN EXTENDED NEW DISTINCTION OF:
(X) MODERN LDS MORMON CHURCH
(X) "TRADITIONALIST LDS-FLDS MORMON CHURCH"
INSTEAD OF FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS
JUST LIKE
(X) MODERN CATHOLIC CHURCH
(X) TRADITIONALIST CATHOLIC CHURCH
INSTEAD OF CATHOLIC FUNDAMENTALISTS
DISCLAIMERS AS PREVISOUSLY STATED
SIGNED: RECKIPS
=
==
Dear Concern from tsmith3452 | 1:18 a.m. July 10, 2008
Your information is very misconstrued. You said "Joesph claimed its God
commend to practice poligamy while his actual motif is lust and to multiply its
members." If you did your history you would understand that the concept and
principles of polygamy were received in 1831, not in Navuoo, but written down in
1843. Lust had nothing to do with. If you could only understand the principle of
polygamy. There is a sacredness to such a principle, and you and I will never
fully understand it. You only mock it because you don't understand it and
don't try to see the logic behind it. If you thought you knew how to get
back to Heaven, wouldn't you want a bigger family instead of letting them
live in a corrupt house or drug infested one? I am not sure which missionaries
you have spoken to, but I know we speak of Christ and rejoice in Christ.
"the weakest part of lds members is they dont dare to speak up," Well
I have spoken, but I do have to agree with one thing, More Should Speak up
Rich | 1:16 a.m. July 10, 2008
Jobu, Your analysis is interesting but inaccurate.
That's because LDS believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, whereas the Christians who call LDS non-Christian hold to the traditional concept of Jesus and God the Father, which is non-Biblical. Those concepts were arrived at through debate, political maneuvering, philosophies, votes and consensus in the Nicean conference as well as other meetings. This is why LDS object to being called non-Christian. The LDS believe Jesus Christ meant it when he called himself the Son of God and deferred honor to God the Father. The LDS believe the Bible when it described how God introduced his son, Jesus Christ, at a couple of events. The Bible is quite clear on the character of Jesus Christ. The Nicean creed and the various statements of faith adopted by the Bapitists and other Christian denominations are not as clear and can sometimes by obfuscating and confusing. The argument for the confusion is often, "God is incomprehensible." Yet the Bible is perfectly comprehensible.
FLDS: We are Mormon because we believe in Joseph Smith.
LDS: You are not Mormon because you don't believe in Thomas S. Monson. WE get to say who is Mormon, not you.
That's because LDS believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, whereas the Christians who call LDS non-Christian hold to the traditional concept of Jesus and God the Father, which is non-Biblical. Those concepts were arrived at through debate, political maneuvering, philosophies, votes and consensus in the Nicean conference as well as other meetings. This is why LDS object to being called non-Christian. The LDS believe Jesus Christ meant it when he called himself the Son of God and deferred honor to God the Father. The LDS believe the Bible when it described how God introduced his son, Jesus Christ, at a couple of events. The Bible is quite clear on the character of Jesus Christ. The Nicean creed and the various statements of faith adopted by the Bapitists and other Christian denominations are not as clear and can sometimes by obfuscating and confusing. The argument for the confusion is often, "God is incomprehensible." Yet the Bible is perfectly comprehensible.
FLDS: We are Mormon because we believe in Joseph Smith.
LDS: You are not Mormon because you don't believe in Thomas S. Monson. WE get to say who is Mormon, not you.
Rich | 1:20 a.m. July 10, 2008
The reason the LDS Church asks that certain terms be reserved for describing the
church is that failure to reserve those terms leads to confusion. The Church is
not saying that the off-shoot polygamous groups do not believe in many
fundamental principles of Mormonism; however the church does not wish to be
confused with sects that hold to may principles that the church rejects. My
personal view is that the church ought to rename itself to the Church of Jesus
Christ and should rename the Book of Mormon to the Book of Nephi. Of course,
then the FLDS would demand to be called fundamentalist Nephites.
To be or not to be, Mormon. | 1:43 a.m. July 10, 2008
If I am not mistaken, all of these groups were mostly part of the same
organisation at some time back in the old days and then they all split off from
each other. Each of course claiming all of the truth. If that is the case why
doesnt the FLDS Church say that they are the REAL Mormons and tell the LDS or
any other Church not to use the name. What I am saying is that no one particular
group had any right over the name than any other does. Isnt the BOM supposed to
be available to every person in the world like the bible??? I mean no one has a
copyrite on the Bible and no one can stop me from calling myself Bible-man can
they?!
Liv | 2:06 a.m. July 10, 2008
wow we have strayed far from the issue havn't we? seriously, all elder cook
wants is for the media to differentiate between the LDS chuch and the FLDS
church better than they do.
dave hanson | 2:20 a.m. July 10, 2008
yo people, i think your missing the point. If your approached by the mormon
missionarys there is no better way to turn them off than by saying you are
interested in warren jeffs church. No better way than to say that you want to
participate in polgamy.
Embrace the beauty of the differences. Let the missionarys know that you would love to have a few wifes. It worked for me. As far as polygamy goes, it has been a great p.r. tool for the lds church. millions know of the church because if its historical past who otherwise would have never heard of the church. Think positive.
Embrace the beauty of the differences. Let the missionarys know that you would love to have a few wifes. It worked for me. As far as polygamy goes, it has been a great p.r. tool for the lds church. millions know of the church because if its historical past who otherwise would have never heard of the church. Think positive.
John C. | 4:18 a.m. July 10, 2008
To fundamentalist mormon: Sorry for your logic but you are flat out wrong.
There was revelation, the groups you stem from chose to ignor it and creat
something different all together. You don't even practice polygamy the way
it used to be practiced. You have changed the laws and the ordinances.
Therefore are apostate and have nothing to do with the chuch Joseph founded.
From the very begining of time man has always some how thought he was smarter
then God, and was shore that God would do it his way if God only had all the
information.
To Rich | 6:01 a.m. July 10, 2008
No, Rich, we don't care for "Fundamentalist Nephites".
We're good. We also don't care for "polygamist sects". We
reserve the right to decide whether we want to go to all the trouble to change
our name. The main body of the church can go to all the trouble to
differentiate if it's embarrassed, that's fine, but the audacity that
it would try to change how we are identified as if they're in charge, while
claiming they have no affiliation with us is beyond me. You're a good
follower Rich, whatever they say you do. No questions asked. And you all claim
we're mindless drones. You may disagree, that's fine. But I think
you need to take a good, long look at yourself and see how YOU are being
deceived.
To "concern" | 6:03 a.m. July 10, 2008
How could anyone ever take anything you say seriously? Not only are you and
other ignorant anti and mormon haters spouting off nonsensical garbage to begin
with, but "concern" you may want to learn how to spell and use correct
grammar before posting. Your garbage is almost impossible to read. All of you
anti's, get educated before you spout off all your diarhhea from the mouth,
but first of all learn to write and spell properly. Geesh!
To Krudd | 6:09 a.m. July 10, 2008
I keep asking the same thing over and over...either it doesn't get printed
to begin with or the anti's never answer. Makes no sense to read an lds
newspaper if one has no interest in it or is an lds hater. Go elsewhere. I
figure they just don't have a life AT ALL. Wish they'd get one and
stop spreading their vomit ad nauseaum.
debg | 6:27 a.m. July 10, 2008
If I say I am a cucumber salad, does that make it so?
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Jazz go up against 'the best' 10:51 p.m.
- Red Devils dismantle another team 10:51 p.m.
- Heath care reform advocates rally 10:50 p.m.
- Texas AG attends polygamist's trial 10:49 p.m.
- Terror suspect bridged 2 worlds 10:48 p.m.
- Group lauds charter school laws 10:46 p.m.
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers 10:44 p.m.
- Utah County offering H1N1 vaccine 10:44 p.m.
- Study: Porn hurt mind, body, heart 10:43 p.m.
- Pioneers slip past Springville 10:43 p.m.
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke
- Storm pounds Utah for 2nd day
- Cougars in better mood about bowl
- Williams' late jumper tops Spurs
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax
- Ranking the bowl games
- $2M error could mean layoffs
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims
- Expert calls Mitchell delusional
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
278 - Letters: Global warming a lie212
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl205
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall162
- Cougars going back to Vegas147
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil143
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax108
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony101
- Harpring's NBA career is over99
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writer Joyce Gannon offers the following advice...
Latest comments
are in love with the let em gain cobwebs on the bench. Then let them play 3...
Isn't it great that no matter the rankings nor the rantings, it all plays out...
Syracuse 102 Davis 40 let's see most of the game played by JV players. Who's...
Face it: you can never legitimately call someone the "national champion" if...
Like the money grubbing BCS conferences and bowls, your only concern is $$$....
BYU fans are the most defensive fans you'll ever come across. Instead of...
This legislation is not even about health care. This is about expansion of...
What a beautiful photograph! Kudos to Chen Wang.
Yeah, Right!!!!!!
I believe the crux of Golding's argument is that Mitchell delusionally...
Advertisements
how great it would be if we ALL decided to build, defend, promote, lift and encourage...
complaining is just wasted effort..actually it is worse...it is more lack a destructive cancer