Evangelicals won't let us be called Christians

[jay santos]

So we won't wet let FLDS be called Mormons.

I've been thinking about this.

I want to be called a Christian, but I don't want to allow FLDS to be called Mormon. When I dissect my own thinking, I have to admit I'm being entirely hypocritical and the reasons I don't want FLDS to be called Mormons are the exact same reasons Christians won't allow Mormons to be called Christians.

By the way, I'm entirely against polygamy but I do have sympathy for these folks in Texas, especially the children separated from parents.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by jay santos

So we won't wet let FLDS be called Mormons.

I've been thinking about this.

I want to be called a Christian, but I don't want to allow FLDS to be called Mormon. When I dissect my own thinking, I have to admit I'm being entirely hypocritical and the reasons I don't want FLDS to be called Mormons are the exact same reasons Christians won't allow Mormons to be called Christians.

By the way, I'm entirely against polygamy but I do have sympathy for these folks in Texas, especially the children separated from parents.

And doesn't it really boil down to the idea that "someone might think that THEY are one of US" in both cases? My thinking here is that anyone who does a google search and 2 minutes of reading can readily distinguish evangelicals from Mormons from FLDS. So maybe someone has the wrong idea for a while. So what? Yes, I was thinking of joining the LDS church until I found out that they have a polygamist compound in Texas. Really? Of course not. So what this is all about, in truth, is wanting to preserve a self definition and exclude the "other" from it.

This goes back to what I and others have said many times. We spend a lot of time worrying about how we are perceived when in truth, to the extent we are perceived at all (and I think we have a very exaggerated idea about this) these sorts of things barely register.

Let them call themselves Mormon if they wish. Me calling myself skinny doesn't make it so.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

And doesn't it really boil down to the idea that "someone might think that THEY are one of US" in both cases? My thinking here is that anyone who does a google search and 2 minutes of reading can readily distinguish evangelicals from Mormons from FLDS. So maybe someone has the wrong idea for a while. So what? Yes, I was thinking of joining the LDS church until I found out that they have a polygamist compound in Texas. Really? Of course not. So what this is all about, in truth, is wanting to preserve a self definition and exclude the "other" from it.

This goes back to what I and others have said many times. We spend a lot of time worrying about how we are perceived when in truth, to the extent we are perceived at all (and I think we have a very exaggerated idea about this) these sorts of things barely register.

Let them call themselves Mormon if they wish. Me calling myself skinny doesn't make it so.

Here is an interesting article on how the FLDS fiasco has affected missionary work in West Texas:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272400,00.html

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Here is an interesting article on how the FLDS fiasco has affected missionary work in West Texas:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272400,00.html

So other faiths are acting as chaplains while we stay on the sidelines?

The local Baptist congregations have contracts to provide relief services in disaster situations.

San Angelo 2nd Ward Bishop Jeffrey Bushman was contacted by a chaplain helping the FLDS women when they were being housed at Fort Concho. The women had requested copies of the Book of Mormon.

He sent them some copies.

"They didn't have anything or bring anything with them, I guess, and they wanted some scriptures and they asked for the Book of Mormon," Bushman said. "I didn't mind. We don't ever mind giving out (copies of the) Book of Mormon to people."

WTF? "I didn't mind". How about "I was glad to". It's like every Mormon in the media is doing their best to say "I despise these people."

[SeattleUte]

I disagree with this analogy. Mormons have paid their dues in terms of longevity, size and discarding some if not all of their most repugnant beliefs. On the other hand, compared to Mormonism, Catholic or Protestant "Chistianty" has had far too much history and far too prominent a role in our culture to worry about what calling Mormons Christians might do to their self-image. Mormons probably have earned the right to be called Christians, but the other sects (the ones who care are primarily New World Protestants) don't want to call them that basically for spite. Calling FLDS LDS or Mormons on the other hand does a great deal of harm to mainstream Mormonism's image and goodwill. In short, FLDS is a cult, and Mormonism has probably grown out of cult status into at least arguable mainstream status.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

And doesn't it really boil down to the idea that "someone might think that THEY are one of US" in both cases? My thinking here is that anyone who does a google search and 2 minutes of reading can readily distinguish evangelicals from Mormons from FLDS. So maybe someone has the wrong idea for a while. So what? Yes, I was thinking of joining the LDS church until I found out that they have a polygamist compound in Texas. Really? Of course not. So what this is all about, in truth, is wanting to preserve a self definition and exclude the "other" from it.

This goes back to what I and others have said many times. We spend a lot of time worrying about how we are perceived when in truth, to the extent we are perceived at all (and I think we have a very exaggerated idea about this) these sorts of things barely register.

Let them call themselves Mormon if they wish. Me calling myself skinny doesn't make it so.

I'm basically in agreement. The effort at distinguishing ourselves publicly from the FLDS is unproductive, IMO.

In fact, it should be possible to turn this into opportunities to talk about our beliefs with people who otherwise may not have been interested...

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Here is an interesting article on how the FLDS fiasco has affected missionary work in West Texas:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272400,00.html

Interesting. I wonder, still, if anyone is really not joining the church because of what they learn about the FLDS. I really, really doubt it. This sounds mostly like those who already misunderstand us just understanding us less.

I think if there is any danger to the missionary work, it is that many more investigators might learn the truth about our polygamist past. That information has always been out there, but it might prompt some to have a harder look. I think that the study of polygamy and particularly polyandry is best left for after a testimony is fully formed.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Interesting. I wonder, still, if anyone is really not joining the church because of what they learn about the FLDS. I really, really doubt it. This sounds mostly like those who already misunderstand us just understanding us less.

I think if there is any danger to the missionary work, it is that many more investigators might learn the truth about our polygamist past. That information has always been out there, but it might prompt some to have a harder look. I think that the study of polygamy and particularly polyandry is best left for after a testimony is fully formed.

Well, the article makes it sound like at least one person interrupted his study of the BoM due to this. I don't think the effect will be long-lived, nor will it greatly affect very many individuals.

I think you're right - the study of polygamy is best left for a person with a fairly sturdy testimony. On the other hand, the truth is nearly always the best course, IMO, and if polygamy is going to be a deal-breaker for some, better they learn it earlier than after they've made certain covenants...

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I disagree with this analogy. Mormons have paid their dues in terms of longevity, size and discarding some if not all of their most repugnant beliefs. On the other hand, compared to Mormonism, Catholic or Protestant "Chistianty" has had far too much history and far too prominent a role in our culture to worry about what calling Mormons Christians might do to their self-image. Mormons probably have earned the right to be called Christians, but the other sects (the ones who care are primarily New World Protestants) don't want to call them that basically for spite. Calling FLDS LDS or Mormons on the other hand does a great deal of harm to mainstream Mormonism's image and goodwill. In short, FLDS is a cult, and Mormonism has probably grown out of cult status into at least arguable mainstream status.

I think the church lost the right to claim exclusive use of the word Mormon due to that time where they asked members and others not to refer to members as Mormons.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

So we won't wet let FLDS be called Mormons.

I've been thinking about this.

I want to be called a Christian, but I don't want to allow FLDS to be called Mormon. When I dissect my own thinking, I have to admit I'm being entirely hypocritical and the reasons I don't want FLDS to be called Mormons are the exact same reasons Christians won't allow Mormons to be called Christians.

By the way, I'm entirely against polygamy but I do have sympathy for these folks in Texas, especially the children separated from parents.

The FLDS church is no more Mormon than the Church of England is Catholic.

Your analogy of Christians not allowing Mormons to be called Christians vs. Mormons letting FLDS being called Mormons doesn't hold. The core identity of the Mormon church is its worship of Christ as their Savior and Redeemer. The core identity of the Mormon church isn't its "Mormonhood".