Reader comments
LDS Church emphasizes 'Mormon' distinctions
196 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 1:02 a.m. July 11, 2008
Methinks thou doth protest too much
Here we go again! | 1:14 a.m. July 11, 2008
Does this never end??? The LDS Church does not own the Mormon name anymore than
anyone else does. When the early "Mormon" Churches separated, who is
to say which one became the REAL Mormons, after all they all claim the truth.
LDS folk simply have an internal view of themselves being entitled to this name.
When I hear of the word Mormon I think about people who believe in the Book of
Mormon, nothing more nothing less. Wouldnt the LDS Curch be better spending its
time and resources helping those in need??? Plus not long ago they stated that
they didnt want to be known as Mormons anyway. Yes, like this story, it has all
be heard before, unfortunately!!
Paperboy | 2:10 a.m. July 11, 2008
Ah, the irony is so delicious.
Comments continue below
Tired of This | 4:20 a.m. July 11, 2008
Sounds like the LDS Church continues to beat this dead horse. Get over it and
move on. Anon | 1:02 a.m. ~ couldn't agree more.
Joeblow | 4:42 a.m. July 11, 2008
FLDS and LDS have much more in common than they have differences. Get used to
the public confusion.
Sam2 | 5:10 a.m. July 11, 2008
Why is the Church then not referring to itself as "Mormon Church",
loud and clear, instead of "LDS Church"? The full name is too long, a
shorter term is unavoidable. But for years the Church asked to avoid the
adjective "Mormon", and now it scrambles to claim it as a unique
trademark. Start using "Mormon Church" as much or more than "LDS
Church". The world at large will better understand and identify what is
meant.
Anonymous | 5:52 a.m. July 11, 2008
Very interesting. What do you think will happen if the LDS church just ignores
comments?
Paul in Virginia | 5:55 a.m. July 11, 2008
The term "Mormon" should apply to members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Just as the term "Catholic" should apply
to members of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Both groups are the
"originals". Both have had splinter groups leave the
"mother" church for numerous reasons. Most, if not all, of these
splinter groups, take issue with the policies, teachings, or positions of their
respective mother churches. Many state to be a more "correct" version
of the mother church, as they claim to following the original teachings of the
faith, maintaining that the mother church has departed from those teachings.
However, to use the same name as the mother church has one primary purpose. To
establish and/or to maintain their identity. A small group can quickly lose
its' identity, and acceptance in the general public, if they start from
scratch with a new name. Also, in the case of the name "Mormon", none
of these groups would continue to use that name if they didn't believe it
was positive for them. They would call themselves something else, as do
Methodists, Lutherans, etc., so as to ensure a proper distinction from the
mother church.
Cats | 6:42 a.m. July 11, 2008
For the polygamists to try to commandeer the name "Mormon" is identity
theft. They have a right to believe whatever they want, but they have no right
to misappropriate the name of a well-established Church and the original user of
the name.
These groups chose to leave the Church many years ago and they need to accept that, as apostates from the LDS Church, they no longer have the right to use the name "Mormon."
Again, they have a right to believe anything they want and to practice anything they want (within the law, of course), but they need to stop pretending to be Mormons.
These groups chose to leave the Church many years ago and they need to accept that, as apostates from the LDS Church, they no longer have the right to use the name "Mormon."
Again, they have a right to believe anything they want and to practice anything they want (within the law, of course), but they need to stop pretending to be Mormons.
KingM | 6:46 a.m. July 11, 2008
Ironic that the Church gets upset that other Christians don't consider
Mormons to be Christian, and yet denies the FLDS, et al, the right to call
themselves Mormon.
I understand that it's awkward and embarrassing to be linked to these little sects, but they share a common history, scriptures, and a good deal of doctrine and that's not going to go away. Better to just move on instead of complaining about it constantly.
I understand that it's awkward and embarrassing to be linked to these little sects, but they share a common history, scriptures, and a good deal of doctrine and that's not going to go away. Better to just move on instead of complaining about it constantly.
Anonymous | 6:57 a.m. July 11, 2008
We are allowed to use the terms Mormon temple, Mormon missionaries or the Mormon
Tabernacle Choir.
We are not allowed to use the expression Mormon fundamentalist.
Must we use the term Anabrus simplex, or can we use Mormon cricket?
We are not allowed to use the expression Mormon fundamentalist.
Must we use the term Anabrus simplex, or can we use Mormon cricket?
jr | 7:04 a.m. July 11, 2008
The Mormon can jump through hoops but the history is there and that the leaders
have shown much tolerance to polygamists over the years leaves a big question.
Also, the LDS religion does practicse polygamy today in the spriritual sense
and in the temple. Men today can be sealed to multiple women but a woman can
only be sealed to one man. Polygamy is alive and well only in a different
format for the Mormon faith
Ironic | 7:10 a.m. July 11, 2008
Show me the money. The church practically owns the state, certainly its'
administration. If they really want to run away from their FLDS brethern,
let's see some prosecutions. This stuff is going on down there at the
border on their watch. Inaction is tacit approval.
Danny C. | 7:15 a.m. July 11, 2008
Why not stop using the term altogether (except in reference to the book) and
continue demanding that the press refer to the church by its actual name?
"Mormon" has always been a derogatory nickname for the church and as
we can see causes no small amount of confusion.
Richard Nibbler | 7:22 a.m. July 11, 2008
Could somebody please tell me what the difference is between the
"fundamentalists" and the Mormon Church when the comparison is made in
1890.
You can paint a brick gold but it's still a brick.
You can paint a brick gold but it's still a brick.
Say What | 7:21 a.m. July 11, 2008
Methinks Anonymous doth make too many negative comments
Hamlet quote dumb | 7:26 a.m. July 11, 2008
Huh? Quoting Shakespeare adds nothing. Are you implying that mainstream LDS
currently engage in Polygamy? Or that teenage girls are married off to older
men? Or that young men are routinely told to leave the group? Why do you think
that we protest too much?
Matt | 7:35 a.m. July 11, 2008
to 1:02 a.m.
Methinks thou dost remain too Anonymous.
The parties to the debate use their own names, and give reasons for their positions.
Methinks thou dost remain too Anonymous.
The parties to the debate use their own names, and give reasons for their positions.
ajarizona | 7:38 a.m. July 11, 2008
It's been less than twenty years since the polygamists illegally
incorporated their name.
Could I start a business today such as;
"The Fundamental Home Depot" or
"The Original Burger King", or maybe
"My Village Inn".
Or perhaps "Mountainland McDonalds", and sell hamburgers?
You would have lawyers from these Corporations on you in a nanosecond and would be ordered to stop using that name, immediately.
It is high time, (it should have been done at the time, the Church attorneys must have been asleep at the switch), to take this to court and have them ordered to stop using this name.
The LDS Church incorporated their name in 1838. Adding one word to a long establised brand is not legal. They should be held accountable for copyright infringement, Now! Their deception is intentional and they are trading on someone elses good works,.
Enough is enough!
Could I start a business today such as;
"The Fundamental Home Depot" or
"The Original Burger King", or maybe
"My Village Inn".
Or perhaps "Mountainland McDonalds", and sell hamburgers?
You would have lawyers from these Corporations on you in a nanosecond and would be ordered to stop using that name, immediately.
It is high time, (it should have been done at the time, the Church attorneys must have been asleep at the switch), to take this to court and have them ordered to stop using this name.
The LDS Church incorporated their name in 1838. Adding one word to a long establised brand is not legal. They should be held accountable for copyright infringement, Now! Their deception is intentional and they are trading on someone elses good works,.
Enough is enough!
Cougar Blue | 7:54 a.m. July 11, 2008
Why is it that we in the Church are sooooo sensitive to the perceptions of
others? It's as though we have to appear squeaky clean on every issue. It
gotten to the point that we feel that our image, not our message, is the most
important thing in the world.
This is not only related to the "fundamentalist" debate, but to the gay marriage debate; white shirts at church debate; and we could go on and on. For heaven's sake, let's get over ourselves and just live the gospel.
This is not only related to the "fundamentalist" debate, but to the gay marriage debate; white shirts at church debate; and we could go on and on. For heaven's sake, let's get over ourselves and just live the gospel.
Ammonihah | 7:54 a.m. July 11, 2008
History repeats itself. Looks like we are heading for another confounding of
the languages. We are seeing the same thing happen right now with the word
Marriage. When people cannot depend on the word symbols they have used for
years to mean what they have always represented, it causes confusion.
Is marriage between a man and a woman, between a man and a man, between a woman and woman or between several different parties? Does the word Mormon represent those who follow the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or does it represent the followers of Warren Jeffs or some other group with beliefs and practices that would lead a member of the LDS church into excommunication?
Effective communication occurs when the receiver receives the message the sender intended to send. We depend on words as a primary method of delivery. Cloud the meaning of the words and you effectively dilute the languages and create ineffective communication.
Is marriage between a man and a woman, between a man and a man, between a woman and woman or between several different parties? Does the word Mormon represent those who follow the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or does it represent the followers of Warren Jeffs or some other group with beliefs and practices that would lead a member of the LDS church into excommunication?
Effective communication occurs when the receiver receives the message the sender intended to send. We depend on words as a primary method of delivery. Cloud the meaning of the words and you effectively dilute the languages and create ineffective communication.
Hey Mormons | 7:59 a.m. July 11, 2008
Don't you have anything better to do? How much time and money is being
spent on something that is basically a non-issue to nearly everyone in the
world.
Non-believer | 8:05 a.m. July 11, 2008
Come on LDS Church. Give it a rest. I agree with anonymous. (And I rarely do.)
A word of caution | 8:09 a.m. July 11, 2008
I'm afraid this constant campaign of "they're not Mormons,
we're the only real Mormons" may backfire, as people see Mormons as
elitist and not very Christian in this attitude. Maybe not, but that's
just how it comes across to me.
to anonymous | 8:11 a.m. July 11, 2008
Actually, this is not a trivial thing because there is real confusion in the
press and the world, in general about who and who is not a member of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As a true Mormon, it is an affront when
others who are not LDS are reported as such. Here we know the difference. The
world at large doesn't.
The Church has every right to protect itself from false charges.
In the news it's very common to mention that a person is a Mormon if there has been some wrong-doing. By the same token I don't see Baptists or Catholics being spot-lighted this way when one of their congregation does some crime. There is a built-in prejudice against Mormons as it is. There is no further need to fuel the flames with innacurate reporting.
The Church has every right to protect itself from false charges.
In the news it's very common to mention that a person is a Mormon if there has been some wrong-doing. By the same token I don't see Baptists or Catholics being spot-lighted this way when one of their congregation does some crime. There is a built-in prejudice against Mormons as it is. There is no further need to fuel the flames with innacurate reporting.
David R VanLangeveld | 8:37 a.m. July 11, 2008
To answer Richard Nibbler's question, there were no
"fundamentalists" in 1890. The LDS Church did practice polygamy then,
true, but it was nothing like the FLDS Church practices it. In the FLDS Chruch,
ALL men are expected to take more than one wife. In 1890, a man could only take
another wife if he was commanded to by an apostle. If a Mormon family of 1890
was struggling to make ends meet, the man wouldn't be commanded to take
another wife. And, it was usually only General Authorities who had more than
one wife. Occasionally others not in leadership positions had more than one
wife, but that was the exception, not the rule. Marriages weren't arranged
nor were teenagers, or anyone else, for that matter, forced into marriages.
Also, the first wife had to give her approval on her husband's choice of
another wife.
Mitt? | 8:43 a.m. July 11, 2008
Could this have anything to do with an LDS politician being considered as a
possible VP pick?
Jordan | 8:46 a.m. July 11, 2008
I am so glad the Church is doing something about this. People see the word
"Mormon," no matter what context, and they think of us, that's
all there is to it. We wouldn't care if they used the word Mormon, just
that no one, especially the media, makes the distinction. When I was in Korea, a
guy wouldn't talk to me because he said I had two mothers (it was at the
time Warren Jeffs was making news).
This is a very important issue and I am proud of the Church. The world's perception that we are part of that sect is killing us and it needs to be stopped.
This is a very important issue and I am proud of the Church. The world's perception that we are part of that sect is killing us and it needs to be stopped.
Arkad | 8:44 a.m. July 11, 2008
Mr "Hey Mormons":
Don't YOU have anything better to do?
Don't YOU have anything better to do?
Mormon Atheist | 8:52 a.m. July 11, 2008
The term "Catholic" applies to both the Orthodox and Roman churches,
yet both are separate.
LDS need to realize that they aren't the only Mormons.
I am an atheist, but still a Mormon, since that was the tradition in which I was brought up.
Go have another revelation and get over it.
LDS need to realize that they aren't the only Mormons.
I am an atheist, but still a Mormon, since that was the tradition in which I was brought up.
Go have another revelation and get over it.
Paul from Virginia | 8:57 a.m. July 11, 2008
To Ammonihah: You hit the nail on the head. Accurate communication does
matter.
To Hey Mormons: It may be a non-issue to you, but wait until someone uses your identity to represent that they are something that they are not.
If we all want to be honest, call things exactly what they are. Don't be afraid to stand on your own two feet and not someone elses. My father's name is Carl, I am in many respects like my father, but I don't have the right to say that I am "Carl". I should distinquish myself and have my own identity. If I was named Carl Jr., then I will distinquish myself as the "Jr.", and not try to maintain that I am the "Sr.", regardless on my roots. Lutherans have every right to use the term "Catholic" (meaning - true believer) as the mother church i.e. they have many of the same teachings, origins, etc. but they distinguish themselves as followers of Martin Luther's break from the mother church. Break-away groups from the Salt Lake City (Mormon Church) need to stand on their own two feet, just as Martin Luther did.
To Hey Mormons: It may be a non-issue to you, but wait until someone uses your identity to represent that they are something that they are not.
If we all want to be honest, call things exactly what they are. Don't be afraid to stand on your own two feet and not someone elses. My father's name is Carl, I am in many respects like my father, but I don't have the right to say that I am "Carl". I should distinquish myself and have my own identity. If I was named Carl Jr., then I will distinquish myself as the "Jr.", and not try to maintain that I am the "Sr.", regardless on my roots. Lutherans have every right to use the term "Catholic" (meaning - true believer) as the mother church i.e. they have many of the same teachings, origins, etc. but they distinguish themselves as followers of Martin Luther's break from the mother church. Break-away groups from the Salt Lake City (Mormon Church) need to stand on their own two feet, just as Martin Luther did.
Al | 9:03 a.m. July 11, 2008
The L.D.S. church has been trying for too long to appeal to the world and their
view of the church. Too much sanitizing and changing has a real negative effect
on those members that keep the church alive with their contributions and
service.
Go away FLDS | 9:07 a.m. July 11, 2008
I really dislike LDS to have their name associated with FLDS in anyway shape or
form. These FLDS are not good men they are controlling adulterers. Someone needs
to get rid of this ugly polygamy look. It is not a good face for the LDS church.
Joseph | 9:05 a.m. July 11, 2008
Great! Now that the Church has encouraged me to speak for myself, here goes:
1) Since when does being a Christian come with the right to understanding and respect?
2) The Church is the one stretching here, not the fundamentalists. If you step one foot outside of Utah the difference between these groups is tiny. It just happens that one is bigger than the others. To take solace in being bigger is a mistake. It probably just means the mainstream church is asked to sacrifice less.
3) Falling back on PR is an old business trick usually associated with spin at best and outright deception (far from uncommon) at worst. These constant cries of "We're normal! We're normal! ring hollow, especially when a culture valiant to our covenants (law of consecration) would leave us little chance of fitting in.
1) Since when does being a Christian come with the right to understanding and respect?
2) The Church is the one stretching here, not the fundamentalists. If you step one foot outside of Utah the difference between these groups is tiny. It just happens that one is bigger than the others. To take solace in being bigger is a mistake. It probably just means the mainstream church is asked to sacrifice less.
3) Falling back on PR is an old business trick usually associated with spin at best and outright deception (far from uncommon) at worst. These constant cries of "We're normal! We're normal! ring hollow, especially when a culture valiant to our covenants (law of consecration) would leave us little chance of fitting in.
Carrick | 9:09 a.m. July 11, 2008
Hey King M and others who keep harping on the fact that The LDS and FLDS share a
common heritage and therefore the FLDS should be allowed to call themselves
Mormons -- the Queen of England and I share a common heritage but somehow I
don't think I would be allowed to identify myself as a member of the royal
family.
We can masquerade as whatver we want, but the reality is quite different.
We can masquerade as whatver we want, but the reality is quite different.
Anonymous | 9:11 a.m. July 11, 2008
I think the mormon church has bigger image and doctinal problems than this.
They are looking more and more foolish every time this issue is brought up. The more this issue is brought up the more knowledge of this church and its doctrinal positions are exposed to the world. I don't really think this is good for the church because the more people now up you the sillier you look and validity of the church not being christian certainly is exposed.
Sorry but you do more hard then good. No wonder the church is in such a dramatic decline.
They are looking more and more foolish every time this issue is brought up. The more this issue is brought up the more knowledge of this church and its doctrinal positions are exposed to the world. I don't really think this is good for the church because the more people now up you the sillier you look and validity of the church not being christian certainly is exposed.
Sorry but you do more hard then good. No wonder the church is in such a dramatic decline.
Hey Here We Go Again | 9:12 a.m. July 11, 2008
The LDS Church uses its resources more than any other organization to help those
in need. What a stupid comment.
Helen M. Kimball | 9:16 a.m. July 11, 2008
FLDS and LDS are extremely similar.
The FLDS are simply living the LDS religion of the 1830s through 1920s.
Want to get rid of the stigma? Cut section 132 out of the D & C, stop sealing men to more than one woman and make a statement that polygamy was a mistake.
Then and only then can you say that LDS and FLDS are no longer similar.
The FLDS are simply living the LDS religion of the 1830s through 1920s.
Want to get rid of the stigma? Cut section 132 out of the D & C, stop sealing men to more than one woman and make a statement that polygamy was a mistake.
Then and only then can you say that LDS and FLDS are no longer similar.
Cats | 9:26 a.m. July 11, 2008
The LDS Church has to do whatever possible to protect itself.
For those who don't know--we have suffered severe persecution throughout our history. We have been driven, raped, murdered and had our property confiscated. We are the only religion in the history of the United States that has had federal laws passed against us (despite the First Amendment). We are the only religion that has had the U.S. Army sent against us.
Most of this persecution has been due to all kinds of lies, misperceptions and misunderstandings. Is it any wonder that the Church is concerned about still more misperceptions and misunderstandings? We have missionaries in the field and members of the Church throughout the world who have to deal with the unpleasant consequences of these misperceptions
If these people want to leave the Church they have that right. If they want to engage in illegal practices they will have to take the consequences. However, they don't have the right to take a name that is legally trademarked, copyrighted and owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.
I applaud AJARIZONA. We have every right try and protect ourselves.
For those who don't know--we have suffered severe persecution throughout our history. We have been driven, raped, murdered and had our property confiscated. We are the only religion in the history of the United States that has had federal laws passed against us (despite the First Amendment). We are the only religion that has had the U.S. Army sent against us.
Most of this persecution has been due to all kinds of lies, misperceptions and misunderstandings. Is it any wonder that the Church is concerned about still more misperceptions and misunderstandings? We have missionaries in the field and members of the Church throughout the world who have to deal with the unpleasant consequences of these misperceptions
If these people want to leave the Church they have that right. If they want to engage in illegal practices they will have to take the consequences. However, they don't have the right to take a name that is legally trademarked, copyrighted and owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.
I applaud AJARIZONA. We have every right try and protect ourselves.
bilbo | 9:26 a.m. July 11, 2008
at 1:14 an, July 11, 2008,"here we go again" said:
"Does this never end??? The LDS Church does not own the Mormon name anymore than anyone else does..."
I am happy someone agrees that Westboro Baptist Church is truly a valid Baptist Church. They DO have a right ro be recognized as a valid Baptist organization just because they call thyemselves BAPTIST...right.
thank you for VALIDATING this point.
Sadly enough, no enough other Baptist memebers (shall we call them Jack Baptists) don't know enough about them.
With their Baptist attitudes, they could well enough join THIS Westboro group...after all, they are exceedingly judgemental towards others not in their group.
WESTBORO Baptist Church...your friendly, authentic Baptist Church.
"Does this never end??? The LDS Church does not own the Mormon name anymore than anyone else does..."
I am happy someone agrees that Westboro Baptist Church is truly a valid Baptist Church. They DO have a right ro be recognized as a valid Baptist organization just because they call thyemselves BAPTIST...right.
thank you for VALIDATING this point.
Sadly enough, no enough other Baptist memebers (shall we call them Jack Baptists) don't know enough about them.
With their Baptist attitudes, they could well enough join THIS Westboro group...after all, they are exceedingly judgemental towards others not in their group.
WESTBORO Baptist Church...your friendly, authentic Baptist Church.
To: Hey Here We Go Again | 9:30 a.m. July 11, 2008
The LDS does NOT use it resources more than any other organization to help those
in need! There are many churches and non-profits that provide much much more;
however the LDS church likes to publish it participation and make themselves
look like the champion of these efforts. That is just wrong!
Take a look at charity and giving of your church as far as a ratio of what the church takes in and the wealth of the church. It is very very sad.
Good luck on city creek and the commercial efforts. I am sure this is what Christ would expect of a
??Christian?? church.
Now that was a stupid comment.
Take a look at charity and giving of your church as far as a ratio of what the church takes in and the wealth of the church. It is very very sad.
Good luck on city creek and the commercial efforts. I am sure this is what Christ would expect of a
??Christian?? church.
Now that was a stupid comment.
RE: Helen | 9:29 a.m. July 11, 2008
No they are not Helen, the doctrines are similar but the way they practice
polygamy and live is completely different than the way it would be practiced
today by LDS members if it were still practiced by the LDS church.
It is important to make the distinction between LDS and FLDS because of the differences. It would be like calling all Protestants, Catholics in the way that Protestants broke off from the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago. We don't do that though Helen.
It is important to make the distinction between LDS and FLDS because of the differences. It would be like calling all Protestants, Catholics in the way that Protestants broke off from the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago. We don't do that though Helen.
Ed H | 9:34 a.m. July 11, 2008
Believe me, I don't mean to disparage, but it what the outside world sees
when it sees mainline LDS people. They see a church where its members wear
special undergarments, worship in secret, and a man can marry more than one wife
in the temple. It is hard for them to distinguish between Mormons and Mormons.
It is the same problem that Christians have distinguishing between Muslim sects.
They all wear funny clothes and worship in a way unfamiliar to us so they all
must be the same... right?
Fritz | 9:36 a.m. July 11, 2008
"The Church" was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at
the start. Others referred to it as the "Mormon Church". When these
groups break off and add Reformed or Fundamentalist or anything else to the
name, they are not part of that church anymore. The Neo-Nazis has a lot of the
same background as the Federal Order of Eagles, so should it be O.K. for the
Neo-Nazis to now just be called F.O.E? How about if I start posting comments
under "Non-believer" or "Cougar Blue"? Who would know the
difference? Isn't it clear that these break off groups just want
respectability by proxy? If they can't get it from FLDS, try using
"Mormon".
Repent | 9:37 a.m. July 11, 2008
Warren Jeffs is a good guy and a Prophet, You people just don't know what
you say.
A Correction | 9:40 a.m. July 11, 2008
David VanLangeveld indicated that in the early LDS Church basically only general
authorites and leaders or those commanded by leaders took on plural wives. That
is simply not correct. You need to do some research - ALL were encouraged to
take on plural wives and it was a clear and specific requirement for attaining
the highest degree of salvation. Several general conference talks as found in
the Journal of Discourses makes this clear. Members may have had to get approval
to enter into it - just as members today have to have approval for a temple
marriage - but all were encouraged to do so. We tend to pass on false history
very readily.
Also - I believe the "Mormon" distinction will go away when plural marriage is reinstated by the LDS Church in the future as it has been clearly prophesied. I suggest current members prepare themselves for that wake up call rather than criticizing those who choose to practice it today.
Also - I believe the "Mormon" distinction will go away when plural marriage is reinstated by the LDS Church in the future as it has been clearly prophesied. I suggest current members prepare themselves for that wake up call rather than criticizing those who choose to practice it today.
XGI | 9:43 a.m. July 11, 2008
To David R VanLangeveld:
All Men in the FLDS are not commanded to take other wives. It does have to be "commanded to by an apostle." What you don't like is that it has to be the PROPHET. And weather you want to believe it or not there are NO forced marriages in the FLDS.
To all:
MORMON, comes form the BOOK OF MORMON. Those that believe in and practice the principles found in that book are MORMONS. The name was given them by those that hated them. Sounds like to me that the LDS is less MORMON than FLDS.
All Men in the FLDS are not commanded to take other wives. It does have to be "commanded to by an apostle." What you don't like is that it has to be the PROPHET. And weather you want to believe it or not there are NO forced marriages in the FLDS.
To all:
MORMON, comes form the BOOK OF MORMON. Those that believe in and practice the principles found in that book are MORMONS. The name was given them by those that hated them. Sounds like to me that the LDS is less MORMON than FLDS.
Helen M. Kimball | 9:42 a.m. July 11, 2008
Re: Re: Helen
How do you know how the LDS church would practice polygamy today? Has there been some discussion about how the LDS Church would practice polygamy today that I'm not aware of? If so, please cite the source.
The methods used by the LDS Church to practice polygamy in the 1800s is similar to how the FLDS church is practicing it today.
Very similar.
How do you know how the LDS church would practice polygamy today? Has there been some discussion about how the LDS Church would practice polygamy today that I'm not aware of? If so, please cite the source.
The methods used by the LDS Church to practice polygamy in the 1800s is similar to how the FLDS church is practicing it today.
Very similar.
Mahonri | 9:43 a.m. July 11, 2008
Cats, the word "Mormon" is NOT legally trademarked, copyrighted and
owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. They tried to get the
trademark but failed. Real the Church's PR statement carefully, and go to
the trademarks website.
The LDS Church didn't begin the nickname "Mormon", and the Book of Mormon was published before the organization of the Church. It was simply a non-LDS nickname for those who believed in the Book of Mormon.
Another point that keeps getting brought up that needs to be refuted. Fundamentalist Mormons do not believe they left the Church, and do not consider their excommunications valid.
What should we call Fundamentalist Mormons? They were first called that by an LDS General Authority, the Church approved Encyclopedia of Mormonism calls them that too. We cant call them polygamists because half of them aren't. Lets see - they are believers in the Book of Mormon - I know lets call them Mormons!
The LDS Church didn't begin the nickname "Mormon", and the Book of Mormon was published before the organization of the Church. It was simply a non-LDS nickname for those who believed in the Book of Mormon.
Another point that keeps getting brought up that needs to be refuted. Fundamentalist Mormons do not believe they left the Church, and do not consider their excommunications valid.
What should we call Fundamentalist Mormons? They were first called that by an LDS General Authority, the Church approved Encyclopedia of Mormonism calls them that too. We cant call them polygamists because half of them aren't. Lets see - they are believers in the Book of Mormon - I know lets call them Mormons!
jwr | 9:48 a.m. July 11, 2008
EdH you hit it on the head. Getting tired of the poor me mormon and
persecutions, they brought a lot of it on themselves back then and many of them
were not innocent folk to those around them. Get over the past and live and
learn for today, move forward from the "poor me" When the LDS stop
polygamy in the Temple then they can say they are not the same as the FLDS
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.
- UVU program continues its climb 11:46 p.m.
- Haws playing like a veteran 11:29 p.m.
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU 11:26 p.m.
- Household tips for frigid weather 11:14 p.m.
- Snow brings big chill 11:11 p.m.
- Many seek to wipe clean misdeeds 11:11 p.m.
- Santa clout? There's an app for that 11:09 p.m.
- Hatch's Hanukkah tune 11:06 p.m.
- Jazz go up against 'the best' 10:51 p.m.
- Red Devils dismantle another team 10:51 p.m.
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke
- Snow brings big chill
- 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 lie213
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl205
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall164
- Cougars going back to Vegas148
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil143
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax108
- Harpring's NBA career is over99
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony99
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
Hall doesn't read this stuff but it sure bugged him for a year...even though...
I watched Susan grown up. She is responsible and thoughtful. Susan, your...
Better have a back up job. NFL doesn't look that promising.
The National championship in college football doesn't always produce a true...
jeff, you said: 'there is no such thing as a "patriotic lib" ' We could...
Put up a consistantly rated team that makes its way up to one of the top two...
Viking cooking (Sugarhouse) school is featured on youtube type--UtahHG
KM | 8:16 a.m. Dec. 8, 2009 I did listen to Beck's show from last night....
Lucky I live in Hawaii. No global warming debate here! Every day the...
Hall finished 2-1 against ur Utes and you have to live with that fact. Oh and...
Advertisements