- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We all are aware of the constant discussion among people not of our faith as to whether Mormons are Christians. Probably most of us have been in a position at one time or another of defending the Church as definitely being a Christian denomination, and we have such a difficult time comprehending the mindset of people who disagree with our claim. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard someone say that we shouldn’t call ourselves “Christians” because “Christians believe [such and such]” (be it the Trinity, the sufficiency of the Bible, the end of all communication from Heaven after Christ’s death, etc.). They say that it doesn’t matter whether we consider ourselves to be Christian or not; if we don’t fit the criteria by which the world defines a “Christian,” we are wrong in applying that label to ourselves. Most of the time, after explaining why I believe we should be allowed to describe ourselves as a Christian denomination, I conclude by saying that if a person looks to Jesus Christ as his Savior, strives to live as Christ taught we should, and considers himself to be a Christian, nobody else has the right to say otherwise. A few days ago, I was posting (on another forum) a response to someone who lumps the LDS and FLDS together, calling us both “Mormons.” Naturally, I explained the distinction and found myself saying something to the effect that Latter-day Saints are the only “real” Mormons. As I did so, I started thinking about whether that’s really an accurate statement or not. I’m not sure what the FLDS (or any of the other smaller offshoots) call themselves. If we are so insistent that there are many different “real” Christian denominations — and that we’re one of them, isn’t it kind of inconsistent for us to say that the FLDS aren’t “real” Mormons? (Now if they don’t consider themselves to be Mormons, it’s another matter. My position is based upon the assumption that they do.)
So should we feel justified refusing to acknowledge them as “real” Mormons (even though we don’t believe they are), while at the same time insisting that we’re as much “real” Christians as Lutherans, Catholics and Baptists? Any thoughts?
We can’t really have it both ways, can we? I am reminded of this quote from Ben Franklin’s autobiography concerning a group known as the Dunkers.
Quote:This modesty in a sect is perhaps a singular instance in the history of mankind, every other sect supposing itself in possession of all truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, tho’ in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them.
I think this is universally true. Every sect, more or less by definition, thinks they are in the right, and none of them seems to be able to step back and see things from a different point of view. Of course, there are always a few individuals within those sects who are capable of this, but they are few and far between.doug wrote:We can’t really have it both ways, can we?
I am reminded of this quote from Ben Franklin’s autobiography concerning a group known as the Dunkers.
Quote:This modesty in a sect is perhaps a singular instance in the history of mankind, every other sect supposing itself in possession of all truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, tho’ in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them.
I think this is universally true. Every sect, more or less by definition, thinks they are in the right, and none of them seems to be able to step back and see things from a different point of view. Of course, there are always a few individuals within those sects who are capable of this, but they are few and far between.
doug, what a great quote! i looked up more:
Benjamin Franklin in his autobiography, quoting from the Anabaptist Dunkers wrote:“When we were first drawn together as a society,” says he, “it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors; and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths. From time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge;”
Hence, this group, the German Brethren, resisted writing anything down. they also had no formal priesthood, referring to the Anabaptist/Baptist concept of “the priesthood of all believers”. there was an absolute understanding that the church was inferior to and distinct from the gospel. their creed was meant only to be the new testament, specifically the sermon on the mount. they focused on free will, and recognized that faith and works go hand in hand, hence were very active in charitable endeavors. They believed in nonviolence, “all war is evil”, and some of the faith were conscientious objectors during the various wars. they believed in living simply, wearing plain and modest dress, and called each other “brother” and “sister”.pretty neat stuff, in my opinion.
Today, the “Church of the Brethren” and about six other variants are the descendents of the German Brethren, the Dunkers (the nickname referring to baptism by immersion of adult believers). Some of the variants have adopted more sectarian policies, requiring adherence in some cases to specific conservative theological positions, and excommunicating those who objected, causing schism.
i think it is in the nature of all sects, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they in time begin to excercise exclusive, self-righteous dominion.
I understand why the Church leaders don’t want the FLDS to be called Mormon – but I also have said multiple times that if we want to be called Christian, we can’t deny others the title Mormon for the same reasons others deny our Christianity. Otoh, if the FLDS (and anyone else with common Mormon origins) don’t want to be called Mormon, I’m totally fine with that. In those cases, where there is a legitimate claim to a title but no desire for that title, I believe the wishes of those in question should be honored.
The quote from Ben Franklin is one of my favorites. The idea of men in the fog all seeing clearly around them, but really, being in the fog as much as the next person, describes how I feel about my own life and even my understanding/experience with the gospel. Regarding the FLDS’ right to call themselves Mormon….well, we do have common roots…I guess we can’t tell them they can’t use the term, but we can distinguish ourselves from them in conversation.
Frankly, I think the best way to get rid of the confusion is to stop calling us Mormons. Come up with something distinct like Restoration Christian. Let everyone else have the Mormon name.
Old-Timer wrote:I understand why the Church leaders don’t want the FLDS to be called Mormon – but I also have said multiple times that if we want to be called Christian, we can’t deny others the title Mormon for the same reasons others deny our Christianity.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. I don’t like double-standards, and to me this appears to be one.
Does anybody know what members of the FLDS Chruch actually want to be called?
Quote:Does anybody know what members of the FLDS Chruch actually want to be called?
Non-criminals?
😈 Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Does anybody know what members of the FLDS Chruch actually want to be called?
Non-criminals?
😈
😆 That would probably be near the top of their list. Unfortunately, the fact that they’re criminals is not merely a matter of opinion.“the end of all communication from Heaven after Christ’s death” – Actually quite a lot of other churches, don’t believe that… But you have picked up on an interesting parallel here.
It’s like the defense the left makes of itself, that Stalin and Mao were not real socialists. So the Inquisition, and Witch Burning were not committed by real christians.
I don’t know any FLDS folks personally but the folks that I know in the AUB simply refer to themselves as “mormons”. They also refer to themselves as “fundamentalist mormons” if a differentiation between themselves and the mainstream church needs to be made. The famous “there’s no such thing as a fundamentalist mormon” comment wasn’t very well appreciated but, they never made a big deal of it.
I notice that certain other LDS churches REFUSE to call themselves Mormon as well. Bickertonites for one, and I think the Community of Christ changed their name because of this as well. Josephites seem to be split over whether “Mormon” is an insult or not. I can think of worse things to be called. “Quaker” is a nickname too, and they revel in it.
Bruce in Montana wrote:The famous “there’s no such thing as a fundamentalist mormon” comment wasn’t very well appreciated but, they never made a big deal of it.
Well, as offensive as I find their practices, I can understand why the comment wouldn’t have been any better received than the hypothetical sentiment that “there’s no such thing as an LDS Christian.”Old-Timer wrote:I understand why the Church leaders don’t want the FLDS to be called Mormon
And I think that those same reasons (which I feel can be summarized under the title “preserving/maintaining the brand” [whether one believes that preserving the brand is about not muddying the path to heaven or merely keeping a consistent PR message]) are why some Christians strongly object to Mormons being lumped in with greater Christianity.
Exactly, Roy; hence, my belief that we can’t reject others for the exact same reason others reject us. The whole discussion reminds me of Dr.Suess’ Star Bellied Sneetches designed to teach kids a lesson on inclusivity. at some point, you lose track of who’s who and what’s what and distinguishing stars or no stars doesn’t really matter anymore. OK, back to the original programming….
(…great discussion, by the way…Katzpur, thanks for bringing it up!!)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.