137 children rescued from Polygamist ranch. Guess the State? No, not Utah

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Aeson
Um... for "Christian" substitute "Christian"... because LDS (and FLDS) are Christian sects.

I agree, but they are also both Mormon sects.

[KrazyHorse]

Though I might note that there is far more concrete doctrinal difference between Mormons and other Christians than between branches of Mormonism.

Mormons use (AFAIK) mostly the same canonical texts. Other Christians use (with a couple of notable but not that important exceptions) the same canonical texts.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I agree, but they are also both Mormon sects.

Not in the traditionally applied use of "Mormon". While you can reinvent the term (or any term) to mean "those who follow the Book of Mormon", the term "Mormon" has been used to refer specifically to the LDS Church since inception.

I doubt those who use the term "Mormon" 10 years ago even knew the FLDS existed. Even in Utah the FLDS were hardly known. And worldwide the term "Mormon" is even more closely tied to the LDS due to it's missionary work.

I could call the FLDS Catholic, since "Catholic" means "of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church", as the FLDS (and the LDS) make the claim they are the true continuation of the Church that Christ and the Apostles led. But that would hardly be a useful terminology. All it would serve is to try to obfuscate the reality that the FLDS are not Catholics in the generally accepted and practiced use of the term. Nor are they Mormons in the generally accepted and practiced use of the term.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Aeson


Not in the traditionally applied use of "Mormon". While you can reinvent the term (or any term) to mean "those who follow the Book of Mormon", the term "Mormon" has been used to refer specifically to the LDS Church since inception.

What name do you suggest for those who believe in the book of mormon then?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Though I might note that there is far more concrete doctrinal difference between Mormons and other Christians than between branches of Mormonism.

Mormons use (AFAIK) mostly the same canonical texts.

Actually most of the LDS Doctrine is derived from a text (Doctrine and Covenants) the FLDS would not use, or at least wouldn't use any part of past Joseph Smith's contributions.

Other Christians use (with a couple of notable but not that important exceptions) the same canonical texts.

Yet they come to different conclusions based on those texts, often very contradictory on some points. In the end a religion isn't about a book, it's about the doctrine the sect accepts as "the truth".

[KrazyHorse]

Aeson, your imperviousness to common sense is astounding.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What name do you suggest for those who believe in the book of mormon then?

The Book of Mormon is a testament of Jesus Christ. So "Christians" would work just as well as "Mormons". (Either way... it's obtuse.) Do you call (Catholic/Protestant/ect) Christians "New Testamites" because that's the book that seperates them from Old Testament sects?

"FLDS" or "LDS" are better terms to use if you must refer to one or the other. If you ever find yourself needing to refer to all people who believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired text... it's not hard to explain what you are saying in non-ambiguous terms. You'll end up having to make that distinction sooner or later anyways, to denote your use of the term "Mormon". So why not save everyone the trouble and just use a clear description in the first place?

[Berzerker]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

According to the article, they met with the guy they supposedly wanted and didn't arrest him.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Aeson, your imperviousness to common sense is astounding.

Are you going to deal with the subject matter or just resort to ad hominems in an attempt to obfuscate your inability to do so?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Aeson


The Book of Mormon is a testament of Jesus Christ. So "Christians" would work just as well as "Mormons". (Either way... it's obtuse.)

No, it wouldn't. You're either stupid or mendacious to claim that a broad term which includes all Christians has the same utility as a term which only includes people who think that Christ has already come back to Earth (and believe in a common narrative to this).

Either way, I'm not going to continue this discussion.

[Berzerker]

this is stinkin like a really bad fish story, now they meet the guy and dont arrest him and the alleged victim has disappeared. What was the arrest warrant for? I still say based on what we know (which aint much) this looks like a dismantling of the Texas branch. If Trump was involved I'd say he was trying to scam their property

[Aeson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, it wouldn't. You're either stupid or mendacious to claim that a broad term which includes all Christians has the same utility as a term which only includes people who think that Christ has already come back to Earth (and believe in a common narrative to this).

I said they both are obtuse, yet you fail to address the reasoning why "Mormon" is obtuse, and hide behind a false dichotomy of "stupid or mendacious". (If you were making a joke by using the term "mendacious" in such a manner... it did get a few chuckles. )

The "mendacious" attitude in regards to this subject is to group sects under misleading labels to obfuscate the delineation between them. Using the term "Mormon" to describe FLDS, when the term has been used worldwide to solely refer to LDS for most of the last century, qualifies as such.

Either way, I'm not going to continue this discussion.

Have fun with that, boy.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Though I might note that there is far more concrete doctrinal difference between Mormons and other Christians than between branches of Mormonism.

Mormons use (AFAIK) mostly the same canonical texts. Other Christians use (with a couple of notable but not that important exceptions) the same canonical texts.

This post makes the most sense out of any on this page so far.

I can understand why the LBS would be eager (hell, almost desperate) to distance themselves from the FLDS and other break away sects but the reality is they both use the book of Mormon and so both get to use the name Mormon even if some people don't like it. Clearly there is a huge difference between "normal Christianity" and Mormonism not least of all a new holy book but the differences between Mormon sects is, doctrinally, quite small.

Sure, functionally they are as different as night and day but that difference doesn't mean one side of the family gets to pretend they're the only Mormons when they're all still Mormons.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Aeson
The "mendacious" attitude in regards to this subject is to group sects under misleading labels to obfuscate the delineation between them. Using the term "Mormon" to describe FLDS, when the term has been used worldwide to solely refer to LDS for most of the last century, qualifies as such.

An absurd argument; the term has been used largely to describe the LDS only because the LDS is the Mormon Sect most people know about. Just because most people don't know about St. Thomas Christians and don't talk about the St. Thomas Christians doesn't mean that that the St. Thomas Christians aren't Christian.

On the other hand, many, many Christians would say that Mormons aren't Christians -- and that it's up to Christians, not Mormons, to decide that. Sounds like you agree with that line of reasoning.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
An absurd argument; the term has been used largely to describe the LDS only because the LDS is the Mormon Sect most people know about.

The term was coined to refer to the LDS sect. That is how it's been used for over a century. Using the term "Mormon" in regards to FLDS is just going to cause confusion and unnecessary qualifications of the use of the term.

Just because most people don't know about St. Thomas Christians and don't talk about the St. Thomas Christians doesn't mean that that the St. Thomas Christians aren't Christian.

"Christian" is acceptable to use that way. It has never been tied as a pseudonym for a specific sect the way that "Mormon" has been with LDS. (At least not in the last few hundred years or so. Which we really can't do much about now.)

On the other hand, many, many Christians would say that Mormons aren't Christians -- and that it's up to Christians, not Mormons, to decide that. Sounds like you agree with that line of reasoning.

If "Christians" had only applied to one sect, then yes. But "Christian" has been used for a long time to refer to anyone who accepts Christ as savior, or believes in Christ, or belongs to a sect which follows Christ. So there are acceptable uses of the term "Christian" in regards to LDS and FLDS and any other sect which fits that criteria.

Perhaps "Mormon" will eventually come to mean anyone who accepts BoM as inspired. It's only very recently that other breakaway groups from LDS have been recognized as existing by mainstream population, so what FLDS end up being called is still up for debate. I think it's a misleading use of the term "Mormon" given how it's been used in the past.

(Hillarious thing is the LDS for a long time tried to fight the moniker "Mormon" being applied to them. But that distinction was made anyways. I'm sure the LDS leadership would love to pass it onto the FLDS and just be called LDS instead. But that ship's long sailed.)