Who is a Mormon?
The Principle Voices Coalition is taking on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over its recently launched campaign to distinguish itself from fundamentalist Mormons.
The coalition issued a statement today that says:
''The Principle Voices Coalition has learned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sent a letter to media outlets asking that the term ''fundamentalist Mormon'' not be used. In the recent past, the Church has insisted that we instead be defined as ''polygamous sects,'' even though most of us are not (and do not refer to ourselves as) polygamists.
We strenuously object to any efforts to deprive us and others of the freedom to name and describe ourselves by terms of our own choosing. Fundamentalist Mormons have been referred to by that name since the 1930s, often by the Church itself. We are proud of our Mormon heritage. Plural marriage is only one of the tenets of our religion, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith.
Ironically, the LDS Church has been justifiably uncomfortable with repeated assertions by members of some Christian denominations that Latter-day Saints are not Christians. In many ways, we consider ourselves to be adherents to Mormonism (and Christianity) no less than were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. What distinguishes us from the modern, mainstream Church is that we have endeavored to observe the original, fundamental precepts of the restored Gospel, while the Church itself has, since the early 1900s, repudiated several of them.''
The coalition's statment was signed by independent fundamentalist Mormons, the Apostolic United Brethren, the Davis County Cooperative Society and The Work of Jesus Christ (Centennial Park).
Two weeks ago, the LDS Church launched a campaign to distinguish itself from polygamous sects, particularly the FLDS. The LDS Church said the campaign was necessary because of public confusion over the relationship between the polygamous sect and the mainstream Mormon Church.
The church put it plainly: There is no connection.
But the various sects and independents who adhere to the original principles of Mormonism say they do share a common heritage and should be allowed to define themselves.
The coalition issued a statement today that says:
''The Principle Voices Coalition has learned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sent a letter to media outlets asking that the term ''fundamentalist Mormon'' not be used. In the recent past, the Church has insisted that we instead be defined as ''polygamous sects,'' even though most of us are not (and do not refer to ourselves as) polygamists.
We strenuously object to any efforts to deprive us and others of the freedom to name and describe ourselves by terms of our own choosing. Fundamentalist Mormons have been referred to by that name since the 1930s, often by the Church itself. We are proud of our Mormon heritage. Plural marriage is only one of the tenets of our religion, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith.
Ironically, the LDS Church has been justifiably uncomfortable with repeated assertions by members of some Christian denominations that Latter-day Saints are not Christians. In many ways, we consider ourselves to be adherents to Mormonism (and Christianity) no less than were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. What distinguishes us from the modern, mainstream Church is that we have endeavored to observe the original, fundamental precepts of the restored Gospel, while the Church itself has, since the early 1900s, repudiated several of them.''
The coalition's statment was signed by independent fundamentalist Mormons, the Apostolic United Brethren, the Davis County Cooperative Society and The Work of Jesus Christ (Centennial Park).
Two weeks ago, the LDS Church launched a campaign to distinguish itself from polygamous sects, particularly the FLDS. The LDS Church said the campaign was necessary because of public confusion over the relationship between the polygamous sect and the mainstream Mormon Church.
The church put it plainly: There is no connection.
But the various sects and independents who adhere to the original principles of Mormonism say they do share a common heritage and should be allowed to define themselves.
20 Comments:
I suspect that very few modern LDS members are aware that the term "Fundamentalist Mormon" was coined by Elder Mark E. Petersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the 1940's. While one of the current LDS apostles, Elder Cook, and other current LDS leaders are presently doing a lot of PR work trying to differentiate between the LDS and FLDS, one of their own predecessors was the first to refer to the polygamists as "Fundamentalist Mormons"--a term which has stuck for decades. And why shouldn't it?
To imply, as the LDS church has recently, that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has stolen anyone's identity is a very weak argument. Does the Roman Catholic church rant about how the various Orthodox faiths (Russian, Greek, Serbian, etc.) have stolen the Catholic identity? Do "authentic" Lutherans sit around wringing their hands at how many churches call themselves Lutheran--over 100 distinct denominations?
Schismatic factions are a fact of religious reality. They have been a fact of life for the Mormon faith since 1831, when the first faction broke from Joseph Smith's Church of Christ, which he founded in 1830. The name of the first schismatic Mormon sect? The "Pure Church of Christ." Dozens more would follow in the 1800s alone.
Even the name of the now-LDS church would change several times: from the Church of Christ, to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, to the now-familiar name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In recent years the LDS church has pleaded with the media and church members to avoid using the term Mormon. But now it wants to claim sole ownership of the word Mormon. Talk about confusing!
The LDS Church keeps talking about how they abandoned polygamy "over a century ago." And yet one of their very own Apostles, Richard Lyman was practicing polygamy into the 1940's. I guess he never got the memo.
Elder Petersen--who seems to have invented the term "Fundamentalist Mormon"--was called to the Quorum following the excommunication of Elder Richard R. Lyman. Elder Lyman was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, from 1918 until 1943. He was ordained an Apostle nearly 30 years after the Woodruff Manifesto, and 14 years after the "Second Manifesto". One of his wives, Amy Lyman, served as General President of the Relief Society from 1940 to 1945.
Here is a man who was ordained an elder by Joseph F. Smith, married to his first wife by Pres. Joseph F. Smith, and serving as an Apostle for a quarter of a century, post-Manifesto, and he was a practicing polygamist. To think! Not just an apostle, but also the Relief Society president was in a plural marriage all the way into the 1940s! I know they didn't have the internet back then, but you'd think maybe he had heard about the ban at some point.
Another interesting point: Short Creek was founded by active members of the LDS church, who continued to maintain a branch of the LDS church, which was in full communion and association with Salt Lake City, until the 1940's, decades after the church "formally" abandoned plural marriage.
While polygamy may have been "officially" renounced by the church in 1890 or 1904, it seems to have been at least tolerated until about 60 years or so ago.
r: What a great and informative post. So nice to read some history, instead of all the angry opinions on this blog.
r., I made the same argument awhile ago when this topic was raised....that of the various 'catholic' denominations....
It all seems so silly.....
and making such a fuss serves to draw more attention than it would otherwise get....I mean maybe in some enclaves it is a hot topic, but to those of us in the larger world, it really isn't all that interesting, much less so deserving of such passion....
anyway, I want to echo Silver in thanking you for a great post....
"Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord's servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny "Mormonism," and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which He revealed He designs to have carried out by His people.
Heber C. Kimball
Oct. 12, 1856
"Plural Marraige is neither doctrinal nor scriptural"
Gordon B. Hinkley
Larry King Show
So who you going to believe?
R.,
The Roman Church, commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church has no basis for claiming that any of the eastern Orthodox Churches "stole" their identity. The first "Christian Church" was the Antiochian Orthodox Church (see Acts 11:26, established by Sts. Paul and Barnabas, 42 A.D.) and contrary to the propaganda of the Roman Church, the Roman Church broke away from the Orthodox Churches, not the reverse.
The Roman Church broke away from the Orthodox Churches in 1054 A.D., when the Roman Bishop attempted to control the other Patriarchs (of the Jerusalem, Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Constantinople Orthodox Churches) without any Biblical authority and in violation of the 7th Cannon of the Council of Ephessus. These Orthodox Churches remain in full communion, as they have been since they were founded.
On the other hand, the LDS has maintained its line and the various fundamentalist sects such as the FLDS broke away from them.
"On the other hand, the LDS has maintained its line..."
Not sure what you mean by "line".
Silver and rericson,
Thank you. I have enjoyed your posts over the last few months and appreciate your kind words.
= = =
TBM,
I hate to feed the troll, but here goes. In the same breath you dismiss Roman Catholic claims of true apostolic succession as "propaganda" but you then go on to give the same propaganda spiel that the LDS church uses about their claims to the priesthood.
Now I understand you. I got it. You're a mainstream LDS member who's bitter about the fundamentalists. I'm also guessing at one point your girlfriend must have left you to marry a polygamist. Thanks for confirming this. (No one who is not Mormon of some sort uses the very specific term "line", which I have only really ever heard in Mormon circles.)
Also, you may find it of interest that the LDS church as it is incorporated today is not the same entity that was incorporated before the apostasy to which the Fundamentalists refer. That original corporation was dissolved by the federal government. So it is not nearly as conclusive as you suggest, "who broke off from whom."
= = =
KBP,
TBM is referring to the priesthood line of authority that signifies ones connection to the priesthood received by Joseph Smith from Peter, James, and John, and passed down from JS to others over the years in a continual line of succession. This "line" is extremely important in Mormondom, as without the correct priesthood, the religion would not be sanctioned by God, as only the leader of the priesthood has a direct connection to God (that would be Warren Jeffs in the FLDS; Thomas S. Monson in the LDS; LaMoine Jenson in the AUB; Tom Green in the LeBaron line, and others who claim this "one man" role as prophet, seer, and revelator.
All branches of Mormonism claim that their priesthood line is the most complete or the most original, or that is to say, untainted by apostasy. And, they are all mutually exclusive. There is no recognition of validity of other priesthood lines.
The FLDS say that Wilford Woodruff apostasized from the true faith, and thus lost his priesthood, and that the true line was passed through their priesthood line instead. The AUB, which broke off from the FLDS claims the FLDS apostasized, and so on and so forth.
R,
Sorry, you're wrong again. Not a Mormon, never have been a Mormon, probably never will be a Mormon, and I have never dated a Mormon, nor do I know anyone that has been a bigamist. While I don't have a problem with anyone being a Mormon, I don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, nor that he found a new portion of the Bible, nor that Native Americans are the 'lost tribe' (especially since DNA proves they're not).
As for my use of the word 'line,' as in the uninterrupted line of apostolic succession, it is not specific to the Mormon faith. Look at any of the Orthodox Churches, all of which have an uninterrupted line of apostolic succession. It is an important part of the Orthodox doctrine, which the LDS attempts to copy with it's own line of succession from Smith.
You really need to get out more and learn about other faiths.
Also, as a side-note, it is not just the LDS that believes that the term Mormon should be restricted to the LDS.
The official position of the Associated Press is the same (see the Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, commonly referred to as the AP Stylebook).
Since we know that the press is never wrong, perhaps we should defer to them, and not use the term Mormon to describe those that advocate it's members committing felonies.
Blue man,
You're so cute when you get a riled up!
I'll pass on the "cute", but I feel I must give him "consistent".
bluesman, methinks you may have assimilated a wee bit too much.....seems you've picked up that nasty habit of speaking with forked tongue....
least ways 'bout the media/press....
As for refering to folks as "Mormon", I'm of the inclination to call anyone who is a believer/follower of Joseph Smith, et al, a Mormon, while recognizing that not all Mormon's are fundamentalists, and not all fundamentalists are FLDS.....
ho hummmmmmm
Regina,
What part is with a forked tongue?
Check the AP Stylebook, or ask Brooke - as a member of the press, I'm sure that she can confirm what it says about reserving the use of the term "Mormon" for members of the LDS Church.
I also don't believe that I said that all fundamentalists were polygamists, but that those that are polygamists are advocating that their members become felons in most states.
bluesman...
I was referring to the part about "we know the press is never wrong"....
concurrence with that one is a true sign of 'forked tongue syndrome'....or perhaps early warnings of a psychotic break...take your choice...
later....I gotta get some real work done.....
I should think that Mainstream Mormons would take this issue in stride and consider it an excellent missionary opportunity to spread their gospel. From all sides, villifying the other is at the very least disingenuous and certainly not very Christ-like.
From my (and I believe many others') perspective - and to paraphrase Shakespeare - Mainstream Mormons "doth protest too much, methinks."
IMHO, the whole controversy really centers around what has been referred to here as "the line." This is just another dance for dominance regarding whose right it is to rule. That riddle will never be solved by present-day posturing.
I don't understand why we all cannot be grown-ups -- adults who simply agree to disagree and just move on in the spirit of live-and-let-live... and in the process, do no harm.
The fundies believe in all the principles of mormonism taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor except for obedience to the living prophet. That pretty much makes you not a Mormon.
That is why they have "schised" so many times.
Aloysius said "except for obedience to the living prophet. That pretty much makes you not a Mormon."
Wrong. They just believe in a DIFFERENT LIVING PROPHET. Without a knowledge of the priesthood work which has occurred through the commission of John Taylor, the living prophet at the time who commissioned the work and willed that it never shall end, and who received a revelation to such effect, you cannot probably understand this in your LDS mind which has been taught to "follow the profit".
It's no different than the LDS church having its own living prophet instead of believing in the Pope, who can also trace his priesthood authority back to Peter, though that line, too, has "schised".
R
Problem is that they started believing the John Taylor nonsense years after he was dead. Even if (and that is a big IF) John Taylor said all the things he said and received the revelations they say he received, no dead prophet supersedes a living prophet. A living prophet can only affect succession by calling a man to the Quorum of the Twelve.
The fundies quit believing in the living prophet and decided to choose their own. They "schised". And by the looks of things they schised a lot more after that.
Aloysius,
So you hold to the doctrine of prophetic infallibility then?
Whatever the "living prophet" says is true, always, 100%, no matter what?
I'm sorry, but no man, not even a prophet of God, is infallible.
If Thomas S. Monson tomorrow said that we were going to stop using the Book of Mormon and stop talking about that Joseph Smith fellow, would you just follow unquestioningly?
What does infallibility have to do with this question? The fundies quit following a living prophet and now the "schis" themselves in to oblivion.
I don't worry about nonsense. Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith (who both practiced polygamy said no more plural marriage. Heber J. Grant (a polygamist) said no more plural marriage and so on.
I follow the living prophets who get to supersede dead ones.
Post a Comment
<< Home