Reader asks: What's wrong with calling the FLDS "Mormon"?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rebecca Jane H. continued.
    March 16, 2009 12:58 p.m.

    I don't think Jesus ever tried to disobey the law, and I think the Bible tells us to strictly observe the law of the land.
    As a last word, I know that mormons disprove the last words of the book in the Bible. They make up their own excuse to add a continuation to the Bible, but it says in the Bible, basically, that the Bible was the last word, and anybody adding to it was not of God and should not be considered preaching a true Christian doctrine. How's that for clear and precise? Was that hard to understand? I don't think the Bible said: ummm... I mean, there will be a Book of Mormon in the 1800's. That's the word of god, too! Call yourselves FLDS, LDS, RLDS - you all believe in J. Smith - that's all that matters. You all practice or practiced polygamy in a time when it was UNACCEPTABLE!!!!

  • Tasha
    Aug. 31, 2008 7:03 p.m.

    Thank you for putting my comments through. I'm sorry if I got impatient. The first comment went through immediately and the other 2 took hours!

    Thanks for your comments. I see what you are saying about the Peter passage, but I still believe that the Bible is complete and perfect. Those verses came to mind first, but there are other places where God tells us that His Word is a supernatural,perfect guide. If God is not "BIG" enough to provide all of that and keep it pure and perfect, there really would be no point in worshipping him.
    The contradictory revelations that the LDS Church believe in are confusion and God is not the author of confusion. He doesn't change His mind. His character doesn't change. He is immutable. That's Christian dogma. And the LDS Church doesn't agree with it.
    Finally, Jesus did claim to be God in John 8:58. He said "I am", the name for God. The Jews knew exactly what he meant, they tried to stone him for blasphemy.

  • realitycheck
    Aug. 29, 2008 3:08 p.m.

    Tasha 2:32pm

    if the main and practically only difference between the LDS and the FLDS is polygamy, I could see a bunch of unhappy LDS men moving over to the FLDS side.

    I mean most of the restrictions are the same I assume - no drinking, no smoking, must be married to have sex, etc. And the books are the same, the book of mormon and the bible. And both LDS and FLDS pretty much made rules for every line in the books. (Not sure why, since they are supposed to be simple guidebooks, not operator manuals - but that's neither here nor there for this discussion.)

    But if you are going to put up with all those rules, you might as well have more than one wife. At least that makes up for having to put up with all the restrictions...

    and Tasha 3:30pm: the line you are quoting (Pet 1-3) doesn't mean everything we need to follow is in the bible. Total misinterpretation. It means God is inside you and has given you his voice (your conscience) to lead you through life.

    and ittstt - Jesus never claimed to be God. He claimed to be God's son.

  • johnhenry
    Aug. 28, 2008 7:29 p.m.

    The key point so many people are missing is that it's not the FLDS and other groups calling themselves "Mormon!" It's the media.

  • Tasha
    Aug. 28, 2008 3:36 p.m.

    I tried to respond, but my comment was not posted. Maybe Deseret considers this thread off topic? I know I didn't write anything offensive. To me it is on topic, because a main part of the article is defending the Mormon's right to be called Christian. The things I'm trying to point out are things that are UnChristian. I hope my comment gets put through in answer to you.

  • Tasha
    Aug. 28, 2008 3:30 p.m.

    1 - Yes, he obeyed all the laws. Otherwise he would not have been crucified "for nothing" (Luke 23:41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong)
    2 - Every word we need to follow God is in the Bible
    (2 Pet. 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue)
    3 - Absolutely. (Psalm 138:2 for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.)
    4 - There will be no need for a Bible, because everyone will know the truth. (heb. 8:11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me,from the least of them to the greatest.)

    Your contempt for the Bible and the power of God to keep it from error is yet another difference between Mormons and Christians. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • iltstt
    Aug. 28, 2008 3:03 p.m.

    To Tasha:
    1 - Did Jesus obey every law made by man
    2 - Is every word God spoke in the Bible
    3 - Is every word in the Bible correct
    4 - When God comes to reign on earth, will we add the words He speaks to the Bible

  • x
    Aug. 28, 2008 2:56 p.m.

    Religion vs. Religion is like the rich vs. poor. Why doesn't anyone ever have any good to say, other than horrible things that people read from a book or the media. Has anyone ever lived with in both of these religions? So what,they have different beliefs and some may be strange to people that are not familiar with either religion. But, does that make LDS or FLDS people crazy or weird ? Maybe someday a few people that post here should actually take a tour of both religions. It may be more peaceful than the fast paced life that drives almost every American crazy.And so what if they follow Joseph Smith, does that make muslim folks crazy because they follow Mohammad? I am not FLDS, but i am a true hill billy and if someone bothered me about my religion or how i decided to live, then i would tell them i don't care what they think. People worry about polygamy, what about women that have more than one husband. Not bigamy, but have one wife and 10 men? What would people think of that?

  • Tasha
    Aug. 28, 2008 2:32 p.m.

    To difference: Its funny you should mention it, because the FLDS and other polygamist sects of Mormonism DO indeed make many converts from the mainstream LDS church.

    To GyPsychic: You are fooling yourself if you believe that any polygamous marriages in LDS history were ever state sanctioned. Polygamy was ALWAYS illegal, but Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others felt they were above obeying the laws of their country.

    To Mr. Slack: I'm sorry, but calling yourself Christian gives a false view of your beliefs to people who don't know any better. Christians are people who believe Jesus is who he claimed to be - God. You'll have to define all those convenient "Christian" terms to be understood better. No Christian believes Jesus was created our spirit brother, was conceived by divine sexual intercourse, and earned his way to godhood through obedience to a list of ordinances. Those things are not in the Bible, and are not Christian.

  • Differences
    Aug. 28, 2008 2:10 p.m.

    There are differences between the major body known as the Mormon Church in SLC, and the FLDS.

    I can't find them, but.. they must be out there...


    technical question: can a sect break off from a cult?

  • Edwin Slack
    Aug. 28, 2008 11:46 a.m.


    This really has nothing to do with whether or not the FLDS are polygamous, adulterous, or even cantankerous. This question came because of FLDS news coverage, but it really doesn't matter which break-away sect we may be talking about. Of course, the Community of Christ and the Strangite groups have from the beginning eschewed being called "Mormon" and have no desire to be called such to the best of my knowledge. The question is simply, why does the Church fight to protect the name "Mormon", why does anyone care? This is the question I was attempting to respond to.

  • Chris Plummer
    Aug. 28, 2008 11:33 a.m.

    Both churches believe in the Book of Mormon. Therefor we can call both Mormons. The official title of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It wasn't too long ago that they were complaining about being called Mormons. Now they want sole rights to the name. Get over it already.

  • Joe
    Aug. 28, 2008 11:22 a.m.

    If Mormon's were trying to call themselves Baptists or Methodists or Catholics, they would be way off base. Yet all three of those are Christians, as are Mormons.

    The FLDS are way off base. The FLDS might call themselves Christians, but they certainly aren't Mormons.

  • Nix
    Aug. 28, 2008 11:02 a.m.

    The only reason the Mormon church gave up polygamy was to secure the state of Utah for themselves. Their branch is not very far from the FLDS's branch on that particular religious family tree.

    Mormons have an opportunity to step up right now and help integrate these lost women and children, boys that have been cast out, into the real world so that they can survive outside of a system where their world revolves around the sick whims of a bunch of pedophiles. With all the money the Mormon church has, they'd do best to clean up the stain that polygamy has left on their religion by taking public and decisive action to stop it.

    There is something seriously wrong with a country that went to war with the Taliban but have allowed a Taliban-esque culture to spring up right under our noses. Crimes that ordinary citizens would serve jail time for are allowed to go unpunished because a group of child molesters claim that forcing young girls into sexual slavery is sanctioned by God. And to top it off, they exist on billions of dollars from a government they call Satanic! You and I pay for this, people!

  • WarrenJ
    Aug. 28, 2008 11:01 a.m.

    The list of Baptist sub-denominations is great, see wikipedia. I suppose what really needs to happen is a clarification of what type of Mormon each group is involved with. We might want to define "Old School Mormons" as those who only follow the old teachings and "New Mormon" as one that is trying to make peace with Christianity. From what I understand there are also "Jack Mormons", "Ex-Mormons", "New-Order Mormons" and plenty of others. Pick the one you want and embrace it!

  • GyPsychic
    Aug. 28, 2008 10:05 a.m.

    First of all...stop calling the FLDS polygamous! They are adulterous. I am a generational Mormon and had ancestors who practiced REAL polygamy, which is a legal marriage between a man and more than one woman. Legal, because it was recognized by both church AND state. FLDS men are usually NOT actually married to more than one woman. I live in a largely Hispanic population and know several neighborhood men who are married to one woman and have children with several others...they call it machismo. Call it whatever you want. Just because Dick and Jane dance around a broomstick does not make them married. There are laws on the books in several states that make adultery illegal, but enforcing those laws for one group while ignoring the larger populous is silly. I see plenty of children being brainwashed by parental example to be sexually indiscriminate and mooch off the government in my own neighborhood, but would be appalled if the police swarmed my block and started rounding up children. We live in a society where we are free to be retarded, immoral, and destructive. Remove those rights and we become a socialist state and eventually a comunist nation:)

  • difference
    Aug. 28, 2008 10:01 a.m.

    To me, the difference that was briefly mentioned in the article, is that when Mormons tell people that FLDS are not Mormons they do it because they don't want people to assume that they do the things the FLDS do. It's to avoid confusion and false accusations.

    When Christians say that Mormons are not Christian, it's also because they don't like Mormon doctrine, but they have nothing to gain or lose from it, meaning that calling a Mormon Christian takes nothing away from other Christians and doesn't confuse the groups because there are so many Christians around the world. They only care because they see Mormons as a competitive threat to their religion. I don't think Mormons are worried that FLDS are going to take converts from them, they just want to make sure that people don't associate them with practices they do not adhere to.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 28, 2008 9:33 a.m.

    To halwrite,
    Maybe you are ok with being lumped with criminals, but some of us figure that when articles blazon "Church leader convicted as an accesorrary to rape" we want to make sure people do not think that person is a leader of our church.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Aug. 28, 2008 9:33 a.m.

    I think Brother Slack's Catholic church analogy is fairly good.
    I have found some articles published in the United States about the whole accusations against Warren Jeffs issue that if I had not known beforehand he was not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I would have concluded from the article that he was.

  • SteveS
    Aug. 28, 2008 9:20 a.m.

    Copyright infringement is the dumbest excuse I can think of in terms of religion. Is "mormon" a brand that needs protecting from competitive forces in a marketplace? Are we losing capital due to others' use of the term? Does the FLDS and other polygamist groups' use of "mormon" constitute slander? I'm no lawyer, and I'm not even a businessman, but this just smacks of the LDS Church pandering to Christian evangelicals by disassociating themselves as much as possible from their past. It seems juvenile to me.

  • realitycheck
    Aug. 28, 2008 8:41 a.m.

    they are both mormons. the difference is the LDS allow their children to grow up to be real people and the FLDS force their children to be little mini-me FLDS drones.

    perhaps if they were allowed to read a book other than the bible or book of mormon, and stopped isolating their children from the world, then it would be an even playing field for the FLDS kids.

    a career day at the FLDS high school is probably asking for too much......

  • Edwin Slack
    Aug. 28, 2008 8:20 a.m.

    I think I laid out two aspects. Copyright infringement yes, also reducing mistaking actions of those not of our faith as being of our faith.

    A good friend suggested this latter aspect this way...
    Imagine that someone started speaking against the Pope and teaching that the Pope was wrong about Abortion. That person then makes a big stink in the Catholic Church and finally is excommunicated.

    Then he sets up his own church and calls it the New and Everlasting Holy Roman Catholic Church. He is quoted in the Newspaper as a "Practicing Catholic who is pro Choice."
    The Church has a right and a responsibility to maintain its identity. You are welcome to think otherwise, but this is my opinion.

  • halwrite
    Aug. 28, 2008 7:04 a.m.

    So FAIR's response boils down to copyright law infringement. Pretty flimsy. FAIR discounts generations of uncontested legal objection. The church has come to the legal bar rather late it would seem. FLDS, as outrageous, repulsive and harmful as their cultish practices are, has a long and very common history with the mainstream LDS. I think people who are dismayed over the practices of this cult will be very disappointed and perplexed that "copyright infringement" is the best FAIR could come up with. Afterall, the primary practice that separates FLDS from LDS was a common practice for well over half a century and continued subrosa for many years even after the mainstream church issued its changed doctrine on plural marriage.

  • nosugrof
    Aug. 28, 2008 5:59 a.m.

    There should be nothing wrong with calling the FLDS Mormon. They follow Joseph Smith like the LDS. What is disturbing about the LDS is that they not be confused with the FLDS appears to be their sole concern. The trauma that that the Texas CPS inflicted on the children of the FLDS has not apparently concerned them. The FLDS has shown courage and a sense of stoicism that the LDS has not shown.