Reader comments
LDS Church emphasizes 'Mormon' distinctions
196 comments | Read story
John Lambert | 2:05 p.m. July 11, 2008
To Mahonri,
Mormons are called Mormons because they belong to a church that believes in the Book of Mormon. I gaurantee you will find references to people within the church who reject the Book of Mormon as Mormons.
Mormon is widely used to refer to members of the Church. The term "Mormon Church" is also broadly used. Maybe this is not the best use, but it is common and present use.
As long as journalists will right "Mormon leader dies" on the death of Gordon B. Hinckley, and "Mormon Church dedicates a new temple in Brazil" than they have to accept that the dual use of the term Mormon is confusing at best and basically misleading.
Mormons are called Mormons because they belong to a church that believes in the Book of Mormon. I gaurantee you will find references to people within the church who reject the Book of Mormon as Mormons.
Mormon is widely used to refer to members of the Church. The term "Mormon Church" is also broadly used. Maybe this is not the best use, but it is common and present use.
As long as journalists will right "Mormon leader dies" on the death of Gordon B. Hinckley, and "Mormon Church dedicates a new temple in Brazil" than they have to accept that the dual use of the term Mormon is confusing at best and basically misleading.
Mark | 2:05 p.m. July 11, 2008
LDS FLDS they are one and the same and I will NEVER belong to either one of
them....give me the Jesus of true Biblical Christianity. Jesus my Saviour died
on the cross at Calvary washing away ALL of our sins. and by His grace alone may
we be with Him in paradise.
Comments continue below
John Pack Lambert | 2:16 p.m. July 11, 2008
To Richard Nibbler,
Differences between the LDS Church in 1890 and the FLDS Church:
1. LDS Church had a first presidency
2. LDS Church had a quorum of the 12
3. LDS Church had a system of succession to the presidency of the church.
4. LDS Church was not trying to implement the Law of Consecration.
5. LDS Church had missionaries serving in many nations.
6. Church members were allowed to court and make their own decisions on who to marry.
7. LDS Church taught that sex had as one of its purposes creating the unity of husband and wife.
8. LDS Church did not have any doctrine stating that more wives=higher amont of glory latter on.
9. Monogomists could hold authority in the church over polygamists. (This last statement may not exactly apply in the FLDS churh, but some mid-20th Century fundamentalists leaders did say that polygamists always held more authority.)
Differences between the LDS Church in 1890 and the FLDS Church:
1. LDS Church had a first presidency
2. LDS Church had a quorum of the 12
3. LDS Church had a system of succession to the presidency of the church.
4. LDS Church was not trying to implement the Law of Consecration.
5. LDS Church had missionaries serving in many nations.
6. Church members were allowed to court and make their own decisions on who to marry.
7. LDS Church taught that sex had as one of its purposes creating the unity of husband and wife.
8. LDS Church did not have any doctrine stating that more wives=higher amont of glory latter on.
9. Monogomists could hold authority in the church over polygamists. (This last statement may not exactly apply in the FLDS churh, but some mid-20th Century fundamentalists leaders did say that polygamists always held more authority.)
Linda Lamb | 2:29 p.m. July 11, 2008
I am still saddened to see so many LDS folks so hostile towards their FLDS
"brothers and sisters." Why are the labels so important? Isnt our
behavior far more important in defining our faith and beliefs? As a Protestant,
I dont agree with the concept of modern day prophets nor elevating any man
higher than Jesus, God's only Son. Yet, I do recognize those who are
devout in their love for God and feel a bond with them regardless of their
denomination or label. And I see more Christ-like humility and kindness in the
reactions of those FLDS folk after facing horrible hardship recently than I see
with the mainline Mormons and their preoccupation with being identified with the
FLDS.
Me | 2:38 p.m. July 11, 2008
I like peanut butter sandwiches, oops! wrong forum!
What's In a Name? | 2:48 p.m. July 11, 2008
Christian History,
That is an understatement! Talmage was over a century out of date when he published it a hundred years ago.
The problem with Callister's book is it:
1) is not nearly as comprehensive as Talmage's;
2) suffers from the same "Enlightenment" assumptions and biases that have been debunked among educated people for over 50 years;
3 ) reinforces stereotypes about the history of Christianity and other Christian Churches that are just inaccurate and misleading;
4) is targeted toward current LDS members who already believe in the Apostasy and Restoration, which makes him lazy in invoking esoteric arguments that would never hold water outside of LDS culture;
5) is a legalistic treatment, which is expected because Callister is a Lawyer (family law) and has no formal theological training. He is more like a hobbyist than a religious scholar. He is out of his element and it shows.
What I find most troubling is that as LDS we commonly defend attacks on our faith by such trite sayings as "If you want to know the truth about the Church, don't ask its enemies." But then we listen to people like Callister to learn about Catholicism and early Christianity?
That is an understatement! Talmage was over a century out of date when he published it a hundred years ago.
The problem with Callister's book is it:
1) is not nearly as comprehensive as Talmage's;
2) suffers from the same "Enlightenment" assumptions and biases that have been debunked among educated people for over 50 years;
3 ) reinforces stereotypes about the history of Christianity and other Christian Churches that are just inaccurate and misleading;
4) is targeted toward current LDS members who already believe in the Apostasy and Restoration, which makes him lazy in invoking esoteric arguments that would never hold water outside of LDS culture;
5) is a legalistic treatment, which is expected because Callister is a Lawyer (family law) and has no formal theological training. He is more like a hobbyist than a religious scholar. He is out of his element and it shows.
What I find most troubling is that as LDS we commonly defend attacks on our faith by such trite sayings as "If you want to know the truth about the Church, don't ask its enemies." But then we listen to people like Callister to learn about Catholicism and early Christianity?
Verlie | 2:52 p.m. July 11, 2008
To- Linda Lamb,
Go feel sorry for Satan. He needs your sympathy too.
Go feel sorry for Satan. He needs your sympathy too.
Our kind prophet | 2:57 p.m. July 11, 2008
I'm so sad everyone hates our prophet Warren Jeffs. Many of us know
he's a prophet through much reverent prayer. Thank you Mrs. Lamb for
sticking up for us. You must know he is to.
Bickertonite from Michigan | 3:02 p.m. July 11, 2008
The only differences between the 2 groups are superficial and cosmetic. The 2
groups both believe and aspire to godhood, polygamy, and procreation in their
heretical view of eternity (i.e., the celestial degree of glory), and has been
taught in the writings of Brigham Young, et.al.
End of discussion.
End of discussion.
Anonymous | 3:47 p.m. July 11, 2008
The Mormon church needs to rescind, drop and declare that it doesn't
believe in polygamy AT ALL, either in this existence or in any other existence
to be taken seriously by the press, the greater religious community and media at
large.
There's no other way! All or Nothing! Can't have their cake and eat it too.
It's a hard one and one that will dog the church as long as they attempt to hold on to ANY vestiges of polygamy, including any of the 'eternal' stuff, etal.
There's no other way! All or Nothing! Can't have their cake and eat it too.
It's a hard one and one that will dog the church as long as they attempt to hold on to ANY vestiges of polygamy, including any of the 'eternal' stuff, etal.
John Pack Lambert | 3:50 p.m. July 11, 2008
To to Cats,
The LDS Church did not brake the law, the law was changed to make the LDS Church breaking it. There is a very big difference. It even gets worse once the Edmunds Act was passed that made it criminal to live with more than one wife. Then Lorenzo Snow, who was only cohabitating with one wife was sent to jail. The proof of crime, he had been seen walking down the street with one of his wives. Thus he was "living" and "together" with her.
On the other hand, the FLDS were warned many times by the state of Utah that they should not perform marriages with girls under age 18. They can not even claim that they are upholding central doctrine by this action. They had chances to change, were given years but have insisted on staying in one way.
The LDS Church did not brake the law, the law was changed to make the LDS Church breaking it. There is a very big difference. It even gets worse once the Edmunds Act was passed that made it criminal to live with more than one wife. Then Lorenzo Snow, who was only cohabitating with one wife was sent to jail. The proof of crime, he had been seen walking down the street with one of his wives. Thus he was "living" and "together" with her.
On the other hand, the FLDS were warned many times by the state of Utah that they should not perform marriages with girls under age 18. They can not even claim that they are upholding central doctrine by this action. They had chances to change, were given years but have insisted on staying in one way.
John Lambert | 3:53 p.m. July 11, 2008
To Look Out,
You have obviously not followed President Hinckley's talks. He never said that "Mormon" was a derogatory term. What he said was that we should seek to make it a term held in as high a positive light as possible.
The campaign for the use of the official name of the church has very different reasons behind it.
You have obviously not followed President Hinckley's talks. He never said that "Mormon" was a derogatory term. What he said was that we should seek to make it a term held in as high a positive light as possible.
The campaign for the use of the official name of the church has very different reasons behind it.
Kate | 3:55 p.m. July 11, 2008
I agree with anonymous 3:47
If the church doesn't drop the polygamy entirely, I think me and my family will leave the church permanently.
If the church doesn't drop the polygamy entirely, I think me and my family will leave the church permanently.
John Lambert | 4:01 p.m. July 11, 2008
To PP,
Your friends made their decision based on their own feelings. No one will kick someone out of church for wearing anytype of clothes. Maybe if someone came in totally indecent, but I have never seen people kicked out of church for their attaire.
I have seen people come to church wearing worn out jeans and many other things so I am safe in saying you can do such. The church does not disallow people from wearing sandals. I think in my ward during the summer most of the sisters wear sandals to church, specifically flip flops.
Your friends made their decision based on their own feelings. No one will kick someone out of church for wearing anytype of clothes. Maybe if someone came in totally indecent, but I have never seen people kicked out of church for their attaire.
I have seen people come to church wearing worn out jeans and many other things so I am safe in saying you can do such. The church does not disallow people from wearing sandals. I think in my ward during the summer most of the sisters wear sandals to church, specifically flip flops.
Anonymous | 4:01 p.m. July 11, 2008
What this is getting a little schizophrenic on here.
John Lambert | 4:05 p.m. July 11, 2008
To 12:34 post,
There are several issues. First, what the policy is at the White House is not at all relevant to what the LDS Church does.
Second, I think that the people really felt that they would be too embarrassed not wearing their normal church attire. However it is also true that people will not be turned away from the church for wearing jeans, shorts or many other things.
What I find most frustrating is the people who claim the church controls the Utah government. This is not so, and police men can not operate on their religious beliefs in arresing people. Utah allows the sale of tobacco, does this mean the church supports smoking?
There are several issues. First, what the policy is at the White House is not at all relevant to what the LDS Church does.
Second, I think that the people really felt that they would be too embarrassed not wearing their normal church attire. However it is also true that people will not be turned away from the church for wearing jeans, shorts or many other things.
What I find most frustrating is the people who claim the church controls the Utah government. This is not so, and police men can not operate on their religious beliefs in arresing people. Utah allows the sale of tobacco, does this mean the church supports smoking?
John Lambert | 4:14 p.m. July 11, 2008
To Linda Lamb,
The LDS Church does not elevate any man higher than Jesus, who is God made flesh and the son of God. I would suggest reading "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ" so that you will understand what LDS doctrine is.
Whether or not your accusation has standing against the FLDS I can not say. What I can say is that as Paul says there is "One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism". There is a need for authority from God to perform this baptism. The keys of the priesthood were restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and have been passed in an unbroken chain down to the present time. Thomas S. Monson is the one man who holds all the keys.
The LDS Church does not elevate any man higher than Jesus, who is God made flesh and the son of God. I would suggest reading "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ" so that you will understand what LDS doctrine is.
Whether or not your accusation has standing against the FLDS I can not say. What I can say is that as Paul says there is "One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism". There is a need for authority from God to perform this baptism. The keys of the priesthood were restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and have been passed in an unbroken chain down to the present time. Thomas S. Monson is the one man who holds all the keys.
To John Pack Lambert | 4:17 p.m. July 11, 2008
From what I've read (no time or energy to hunt the source) it was illegal
to have more than one spouse in Illinois, back when Joseph Smith was practicing
polygamy in Nauvoo. Joseph even denied that he was practicing it back then.
(Perhaps he denied practicing it because it was illegal or at least considered
wrong at the time?)
The law was changed to make it absolutely clear to the people in Utah that in the United States polygamy was illegal! Still the Mormons in Utah continued to practice it. Kind of like how the age to marry keeps getting raised to make it clear that we don't want under-age marriages, but some people, particularly the FLDS, just don't seem to get it, do they?
The law was changed to make it absolutely clear to the people in Utah that in the United States polygamy was illegal! Still the Mormons in Utah continued to practice it. Kind of like how the age to marry keeps getting raised to make it clear that we don't want under-age marriages, but some people, particularly the FLDS, just don't seem to get it, do they?
John Lambert | 4:21 p.m. July 11, 2008
To Kate,
The Church has been excommunicating people entering polygamy for 100 years. In the early days they may have only excommunicated the men but since the 1920s for sure they have excommunicated women. In the 1930s they used the test oath to ferret out supporters of polygamy.
Generally for a former polygamist to be baptized they must be interviewed by a member of the Quorum of the 12 to make sure they have no desires to continue that lifestyle and are not just trying to get baptized to sneak into the temple. I have a friend who served her mission in the Utah Salt Lake City South Mission. They had a guy they were teaching whose mother at one point had been part of a polygamous group. Even though he himself had never even been part of the polygamous group he still needed to have an interview with Elder Holland before he could be baptized.
President Hinckley boldly and uneqivocably denounced polygamy in Gerneral Conference. What more do you want the church to do?
The Church has been excommunicating people entering polygamy for 100 years. In the early days they may have only excommunicated the men but since the 1920s for sure they have excommunicated women. In the 1930s they used the test oath to ferret out supporters of polygamy.
Generally for a former polygamist to be baptized they must be interviewed by a member of the Quorum of the 12 to make sure they have no desires to continue that lifestyle and are not just trying to get baptized to sneak into the temple. I have a friend who served her mission in the Utah Salt Lake City South Mission. They had a guy they were teaching whose mother at one point had been part of a polygamous group. Even though he himself had never even been part of the polygamous group he still needed to have an interview with Elder Holland before he could be baptized.
President Hinckley boldly and uneqivocably denounced polygamy in Gerneral Conference. What more do you want the church to do?
To: John Lambert 4:14 | 4:23 p.m. July 11, 2008
"The keys of the priesthood were restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver
Cowdery"
Says who? Joseph Smith? Your claim on authority is as fragile as any other religion. Don't you get tired of spouting this nonsense as fact? Once again, it's your belief, based on what you've been taught. There's no historical evidence that this ever took place, except the claim of a known con man.
Says who? Joseph Smith? Your claim on authority is as fragile as any other religion. Don't you get tired of spouting this nonsense as fact? Once again, it's your belief, based on what you've been taught. There's no historical evidence that this ever took place, except the claim of a known con man.
John Pack Lambert | 4:25 p.m. July 11, 2008
To the 4:17 poster,
Joseph Smith denied that he was practicing "spiritual wiffery" as presented by John C. Bennett. Also, polygamy was not illegal in Illinois, only bigamy which presumes attempts to conceal from a second wife you still have a first wife.
However, more importantly, before 1862 there were no federal laws against polygamy. From 1847-1862 the Mormons in Utah were violating absolutely no laws.
Polygamy was not illegal in the United States prior to 1862. It may have been in specific states but there was no federal law against it at all.
Joseph Smith denied that he was practicing "spiritual wiffery" as presented by John C. Bennett. Also, polygamy was not illegal in Illinois, only bigamy which presumes attempts to conceal from a second wife you still have a first wife.
However, more importantly, before 1862 there were no federal laws against polygamy. From 1847-1862 the Mormons in Utah were violating absolutely no laws.
Polygamy was not illegal in the United States prior to 1862. It may have been in specific states but there was no federal law against it at all.
To: John Lambert 4:21 | 4:34 p.m. July 11, 2008
"President Hinckley boldly and uneqivocably denounced polygamy in Gerneral
Conference. What more do you want the church to do?"
The problem that I and many others have is the clear contradictions between President Hinckley's statements and those of Brigham Young. How can one Prophet condemn polygamy, while another claims it to be absolutely essential to attaining the highest level of Godhood? Are we to assume that one of them is not a true prophet of God? Are we to assume that previously essential parts of section 132 of the D&C are now irrelevant? These are real and important questions that can't just be glossed over.
The problem that I and many others have is the clear contradictions between President Hinckley's statements and those of Brigham Young. How can one Prophet condemn polygamy, while another claims it to be absolutely essential to attaining the highest level of Godhood? Are we to assume that one of them is not a true prophet of God? Are we to assume that previously essential parts of section 132 of the D&C are now irrelevant? These are real and important questions that can't just be glossed over.
jimbo | 4:54 p.m. July 11, 2008
It is so hard to hide from one's history.
Look Out | 4:55 p.m. July 11, 2008
To John Lambert,
President Hinkley did say that he wanted to move away from using the name "Mormon" because it specifically referred to the Book of Mormon and not what the whole church is about. He said it was used as a mockery against the Church, but it rather stuck. He again emphasized that the Church would rather use the term of Latter Day Saints in addressing the members. He did not even like LDS. The major point is that all the publicizing by the Church on this matter is only to keep the pride of the Church in place. Again the more the Church moves away from the Prophet Joseph and the foundation of the Church, the more accepted it is among the Christian Churches. From the polished public image of the Church, the Prophet Joseph is now only the founder and one of the Prophets in the Church. But, he is much more than that. The Church is what it is and the Fundamentalist Mormons are what they are. Bottom line, the Church needs to quit worrying over the public image aspect. Live what you are - your public image is only that.
President Hinkley did say that he wanted to move away from using the name "Mormon" because it specifically referred to the Book of Mormon and not what the whole church is about. He said it was used as a mockery against the Church, but it rather stuck. He again emphasized that the Church would rather use the term of Latter Day Saints in addressing the members. He did not even like LDS. The major point is that all the publicizing by the Church on this matter is only to keep the pride of the Church in place. Again the more the Church moves away from the Prophet Joseph and the foundation of the Church, the more accepted it is among the Christian Churches. From the polished public image of the Church, the Prophet Joseph is now only the founder and one of the Prophets in the Church. But, he is much more than that. The Church is what it is and the Fundamentalist Mormons are what they are. Bottom line, the Church needs to quit worrying over the public image aspect. Live what you are - your public image is only that.
Anonymous | 5:01 p.m. July 11, 2008
Mr. Lambert, you are wrong. Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in several states in
which it was already illegal, as did Brigham Young, John Taylor, and many
others, well before Edmunds-Tucker.
Research your history a little better, my friend.
Research your history a little better, my friend.
Anonymous | 5:02 p.m. July 11, 2008
I think John Lambert is having a conversation with himself.
Paul in Virginia | 5:03 p.m. July 11, 2008
To "Whats in the Name" posted at 1:32 p.m.
"Spoken like a true self-conceited Latter-Day Saint..."
Why the judgemental salutation? What does that bring to the discussion?
By the way, over the years, I have attended services in several denominaions and am familiar with the liturgy used, including the term "Catholic". As I am sure you are aware, that term can be used generically or specifically depending on the context. Although the term "Catholic" does appear in the Lutheran liturgy, no Lutheran would describe themselves as a Catholic. They will always describe themselves as Lutherans, a very important distinction in their eyes.
The majority of "break away" faiths maintain the arguement that the "mother" church left them, not the other way around. Otherwise, they would not have much of a case.
Your last paragraph is a little troubling. Why are you judgemental towards the members and leaders of the LDS Church, suggestnig that "truth and reality" don't matter? Do you feel that way toward all faiths, including your own?
"Spoken like a true self-conceited Latter-Day Saint..."
Why the judgemental salutation? What does that bring to the discussion?
By the way, over the years, I have attended services in several denominaions and am familiar with the liturgy used, including the term "Catholic". As I am sure you are aware, that term can be used generically or specifically depending on the context. Although the term "Catholic" does appear in the Lutheran liturgy, no Lutheran would describe themselves as a Catholic. They will always describe themselves as Lutherans, a very important distinction in their eyes.
The majority of "break away" faiths maintain the arguement that the "mother" church left them, not the other way around. Otherwise, they would not have much of a case.
Your last paragraph is a little troubling. Why are you judgemental towards the members and leaders of the LDS Church, suggestnig that "truth and reality" don't matter? Do you feel that way toward all faiths, including your own?
Carrick | 5:09 p.m. July 11, 2008
To Helen M. KImball:
You may be going by the name of Helen Mar Kimball but your knowledge of 19th century Mormon polygyny is painful lacking. The FLDS style of plural marriage is not similar to the majority of 19th century plural marriage -- in spite of what you insist.
You may be going by the name of Helen Mar Kimball but your knowledge of 19th century Mormon polygyny is painful lacking. The FLDS style of plural marriage is not similar to the majority of 19th century plural marriage -- in spite of what you insist.
Carol Warnick | 5:09 p.m. July 11, 2008
What is so wrong with defending your church? What is so wrong with clarifying
misunderstandings? When your name has been used wrongly what should you do? As
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints (Mormons as the world
knows us)should be sit back and not defend our church? Come on people get real!
Re: Anonymous 5:02pm | 5:24 p.m. July 11, 2008
I was thinking the same thing about John Lambert.
Could we have the real John Lambert please stand up?
Could we have the real John Lambert please stand up?
Thomas | 5:29 p.m. July 11, 2008
Ohhhhhhh........so you really are Mormons? Sorry, I get confused about what you
want to be called.
What's In a Name? | 5:34 p.m. July 11, 2008
By asserting that both the Catholic and Mormon Churches are the
�originals,� you are invoking the
self-conceited Mormon notion that the only two churches that have any claim to
true authority are the Mormons and the Catholics. This fits nicely with Mormon
and Catholic dogma, but it is far from the truth. It also makes assumptions
about what a Church is that are consistent with neither canonized scripture nor
historical documents (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library,
etc.). In doing so, you ignore the fact that the �victors
write the history.� That is no less true for Mormons than
for Catholics. Just because they have been
�victorious� in terms of popularity
and wealth does not mean they are accurately described as the
�original,�
�Mother,�
�True,�
�orthodox,� or even
�catholic� (worldwide), Churches from
which all others are derivative and, therefore, inferior. Thus, you are
self-conceited by summarily and blithely dismissing out of hand all these
Churches and faiths you marginalize by calling them
�break-away.� The fact that members as
well as leaders of the LDS Church use this same self-conceited rhetoric has
demonstrated for over a century that they have no genuine concern for
�truth or reality.�
Linda | 5:37 p.m. July 11, 2008
The LDS church is a mass of confusion. I think I'll find another one to
join.
Soon-to-be-Ex-Mormon | 5:59 p.m. July 11, 2008
When I read these comments, I feel like this:
"For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued�priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions."
I am once again feeling the Spirit of God prompt me that NONE of these Churches is true.
"For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued�priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions."
I am once again feeling the Spirit of God prompt me that NONE of these Churches is true.
Dave | 6:00 p.m. July 11, 2008
It's very simple. Though we don't want to be called Mormons, we want
to be known as the only Mormons and don't want anyone else called Mormons.
And though we don't want other people calling our Church the Mormon Church,
we don't anyone else being known as a Mormon church. And even though others
might say we aren't Christians, we insist on being recognized as
Christians.
Anonymous | 6:24 p.m. July 11, 2008
Dave,
So what you are trying to say is that Mormons want to have their cake and eat it, too!
So what you are trying to say is that Mormons want to have their cake and eat it, too!
Cathy | 6:24 p.m. July 11, 2008
Nothing much makes any sense in the LDS church any longer. I, too, am on my way
out. I do not believe in polygamy and I WILL NEVER SHARE MY HUSBAND WITH SOME
UGLY WOMAN WHO CANNOT FIND A MAN. So long folks!
kathyn | 6:39 p.m. July 11, 2008
I almost wish that the Deseret News would not allow comments to these articles
because they seem to promote such strife. I will not change my opinion of the
Church (I still believe it contains the most complete Gospel of Jesus Christ.)
I don't expect anyone else to change their views on the Church. Let's
just allow each other the choice to believe as we/they choose and quit debating
it.
Mindy | 6:43 p.m. July 11, 2008
It is true and that is why all the anits attack it. If it wasn't true it
would be irrelevent. All you antis make our testimony stronger. You are sad sad
little people.
Our number and being the fastest growing church earth prove the relevents of this church. Take care you antis and good luck with your corrupt spiritual existence you sad people.
Our number and being the fastest growing church earth prove the relevents of this church. Take care you antis and good luck with your corrupt spiritual existence you sad people.
half way | 6:49 p.m. July 11, 2008
i think lds church in the past practice the same way as muslim does.they can
take more than one wife with the approval of the first wife,able to support and
treat all the wives and children fairly.muslim has prophet MOHAMMAD,MORMON has
JOSEPH SMITH.muslim has QURAN as the holy book,mormon has the book of mormon as
theirs .since mormon also believe in JESUS CHRIST as all christians do,so MORMON
is half Muslim and half Christian.am i right?
Lindsy | 7:04 p.m. July 11, 2008
Oh, here we go again with active lds calling their own mormon people
ANTI'S. perhaps you Lds are all anti Christs. Your names are all deception.
Anonymous | 7:06 p.m. July 11, 2008
Why do we need keys today? We have keyles entery
George | 7:12 p.m. July 11, 2008
The reason you all are anti-FLDS and always fighting us is because you know
we're right and we're the true church. My testimony grows stronger
because of you. Thank you!
to halfway | 7:14 p.m. July 11, 2008
That was fun. I believe that Islam had its roots in Christianity and there are
things in common. kathyn
Matt Connelly | 7:26 p.m. July 11, 2008
I love the LDS Church, and I applaud the PR effort to make distinctions between
mainline Mormons and polygamous splinter groups. However I've got to
disagree with the stance the Church is taking on who can and can't use the
name "Mormon." After all, the same argument the Church is making is
the exact same argument evangelical Protestants make whenever Mormons call
themselves Christians. They say, "No, you Mormons may not call yourselves
Christian, because you are not part of the mainline Christian tradition (of
course Protestants aren't either, but that's another discussion).
Obviously Mormons take offense at being told they cannot call themselves Christian, yet the LDS Church is indeed an outgrowth of the original Christian Church. I know some will say, "Yeah, but we ARE the original Christian Church" but I think that's really splitting hairs. In fact, the traditions of Catholic and Protestant Christianity are MUCH older than Mormon Christianity. So let's not be telling others that they can't call themselves Mormons unless, of course, we are willing to have others tell us that we can't call ourselves Christian. We can't have it both ways.
Obviously Mormons take offense at being told they cannot call themselves Christian, yet the LDS Church is indeed an outgrowth of the original Christian Church. I know some will say, "Yeah, but we ARE the original Christian Church" but I think that's really splitting hairs. In fact, the traditions of Catholic and Protestant Christianity are MUCH older than Mormon Christianity. So let's not be telling others that they can't call themselves Mormons unless, of course, we are willing to have others tell us that we can't call ourselves Christian. We can't have it both ways.
Anonymous | 7:28 p.m. July 11, 2008
This stuff all keeps getting worse by the minute, each and every day. Boy, you
mormon's don't know what's up or down in the mormon religion. OR
is this truly a religion?
Polygamy is of the devil. No religion needed to practice it. Religion just gives it a better picture.
Polygamy is of the devil. No religion needed to practice it. Religion just gives it a better picture.
He loves me | 7:29 p.m. July 11, 2008
Dear Cathy,
I AM NOT UGLY. Besides, your husband really does love me. He told me so last night.
I AM NOT UGLY. Besides, your husband really does love me. He told me so last night.
Gnostic1 | 7:28 p.m. July 11, 2008
To:What's in a Name@5:34
Of all the postings yours is by far the most logical. I would implore everyone to read Pagels on the early Christian Church. Then, if LDS, compare to how you are trying to lay claim to "the True Church" moniker. Alas, I think most here just like reading their own comments. Talk about divisions in "the Church". And I thought we Catholics had our internal differences!
Of all the postings yours is by far the most logical. I would implore everyone to read Pagels on the early Christian Church. Then, if LDS, compare to how you are trying to lay claim to "the True Church" moniker. Alas, I think most here just like reading their own comments. Talk about divisions in "the Church". And I thought we Catholics had our internal differences!
Uncle Thomas | 7:31 p.m. July 11, 2008
Matt Connelly, I can't believe you would dare disagree with anything the
church does. You are on your way to apostasy. Next thing you know they will be
calling you an anti. Be more careful next time.
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.
- Bowden meeting with school officials 8:01 a.m.
- FIFA: Ireland won't be in WCup 8:00 a.m.
- Florida's Dunlap arrested, charged 8:00 a.m.
- Stocks climb early as dollar slides 7:59 a.m.
- China: Talk, not sanctions on Iran 7:49 a.m.
- China: US, NKorea talks to succeed 7:48 a.m.
- China manufacturing expanding 7:46 a.m.
- Consumers late on auto payments 7:46 a.m.
- Sheik: Dubai economy 'strong' 7:45 a.m.
- UN slams Swiss minaret ban 7:43 a.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Y. student vanished in China
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Max Hall issues apology
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests
- Rivalry dishes out talking points
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
898 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology381
- Hall reprimanded by MWC380
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal315
- Utes won't respond to Hall263
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome113
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
Someone will recognize the guy in those pictures. He should be found and...
I don't agree with what Max said and I don't think he should have said it,...
I'm a BYU alum and am currently studying at Penn State. After Hall's...
Hearts and prayers go to the family.
What if someone said, on the news.......... "I don't like mormons. In...
What a bunch of babies.
He was definitely out of line. The funny thing, though, is how he's been...
"A Church rule school that tolerates talk like that is not a school I would...
Okur is the worst Jazz player making big money. He always looks like he is...
Presidents, particularly presidents that have never done anything but...
Advertisements
A Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ
or
Christian is a umbrella term to describe a family of religions that descended from Jesus Christ.
or
A Christian is one who has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior and had the "Born Again Experience"
Some attempt to use the latter definition to exclude the LDS people from the family of Christian religions.
When one refers to one as being Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc. a specific church or set of doctrines is thought of. The same goes for the label "Mormon".
Mormon also refers to a family of religions, but only to those very familiar with the religion.
I live in Washington State. Years ago one "Aundrey Brigham Young" was convicted of a serious crime. The press never failed to include his middle name, angering the LDS people.
The press has a responsibility not to mislead.
The LDS and FLDS are both part of the "Restorationist" movement. In as much as the LDS church has come to be known as "The Mormon Church", the FLDS church should seek to establish their own identity.