Are Mormons Christian Mormon? — Part II

In my former post, I discussed the fact that there have been over a hundred organizational groups to derive their faith from the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon since 1830, with maybe a few dozen of these groups still in existence today. I posed the question of whether or not these groups ought to be classified as “Mormon” or can claim the right to self-identify as “Mormon.”
My own answer to the question is simple: the nickname “Mormon” was originally applied to people who followed Joseph Smith and accepted the Book of Mormon as scripture. Any religious body that claims Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon as part of its heritage may lay claim to the term “Mormon.” As an outsider who does not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet nor the Book of Mormon as scripture, I have little interest in polemical succession claims and no opinion on which group represents the “true” followers of Joseph Smith. In my view, the Centennial Park group and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are every bit as “Mormon” as the church that my husband belongs to.
The only exception I could foresee to this definition would be when a group claims Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in its teachings, but radically redefines or departs from how most Mormons have understood his teachings, or does not accord him a central place in its dissemination of doctrine. To give one example, some Bahá’í believe in the Book of Mormon and accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, but I wouldn’t call them “Mormon” because his teachings are not a central part of their beliefs.
“Mormon” and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereon “LDS church”) and its members have had something of a love-hate relationship with the term “Mormon.” On the one hand, the church has asked the media not to use the phrase “the Mormon church”:
While the term “Mormon Church” has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use . . . In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred . . . When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged.
I’ve occasionally had members of the LDS church tell me things like, “I’m not a Mormon, I’m a Latter-day Saint” or “We aren’t Mormons, we’re Saints.” This sentiment goes against what the church officially asks:
When referring to Church members, the term “Latter-day Saints” is preferred, though “Mormons” is acceptable.
It also goes against the current “I’m a Mormon” campaign. But it’s definitely out there, or at least was until recently.
On the other hand, the LDS church has applied for the copyright to the term “Mormon” in a number of countries, many of which have granted it. More importantly, it has asked the media to refrain from referring to members of other Mormon groups as “Mormons”:
  • When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons,” “Mormon fundamentalist,” “Mormon dissidents,” etc. are incorrect. (Source)
  • Do Mormons Practice Polygamy? NO. There are 13 million Mormons in the United States and around the world, and not one of them is a polygamist. “Mormon” is the most common and widely accepted name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City. “Mormons” have nothing whatsoever to do with the Texas sect known as “FLDS,” or with any other polygamous group. (Source)
  • “There is no such thing as a Mormon fundamentalist.” – Gordon B. Hinckley [1]
The LDS church’s main concern here is clearly to distinguish itself from groups that allow polygamy today, but it achieves this by claiming the term “Mormon” for itself alone, thus excluding any other group that wishes to identify as “Mormon,” polygamous or not.
By the way, a little personal anecdote for you: when my husband and I did our interview forPBS Religion & Ethics last year, we were specifically asked by the reporters to use the phrase “the Mormon church.” We had to do several cuts and re-shoots because I kept inadvertently calling it “the LDS church,” and the reporters were insistent that the average American does not know what “LDS church” means.
Do Other Groups Self-Identify as “Mormon”?
The answer is “yes.”
The Principle Voices Coalition, an organization that advocates on behalf of Mormon groups that accept the current practice of polygamy, released a statement in 2008, “‘Fundamentalist Mormon’ is the Correct Term Contrary to LDS Church Claims.” From their statement:
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.
The statement was signed by representatives from the Apostolic United Brethren, the Davis County Cooperative Society, the Centennial Park group, and “numerous independent fundamentalist Mormons.” The group also has an article by Anne Wilde laying out the history of the term “fundamentalist Mormon” here.
Some other examples:
  • The Centennial Park Action Committee has an online article wherein the author repeatedly identifies as “Mormon fundamentalist,” here.
  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (i. e. Strangite) web site states, “As people, we prefer to be called Latter Day Saints. We have occasionally been called by short nicknames, including Mormons, True Latter Day Saints, Original Latter Day Saints, Voree Mormons, Wisconsin Mormons, Islanders, Beaver Island Mormons, Great Lakes Mormons, Michigan Mormons, Primitive Mormons, Seventh-day Mormons, and Strangites, depending on the context and place.” (Source) I contacted one follower of this church and confirmed that they do self-identify as “Mormon.”
  • The Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ, led by Matthew Gill, seems to consider itself a “Mormon faith.” (Source)
Clearly, other groups that derive from the teachings of Joseph Smith and belief in the Book of Mormon do self-identify as “Mormon” and claim “Mormonism” as part of their heritage.
Are there any good arguments for denying them these terms in spite of this?
To Be Concluded.
——–
[1] Statement by Gordon B. Hinckley on the Larry King Live show, Sept. 8, 1998; also LDS Church Statement, press release by President Gordon B. Hinckley, August 29, 2006. As cited at Principle Voices, here.

Comments

Are Mormons Christian Mormon? — Part II — 8 Comments

  1. I often use “LDS” instead of “Mormon” in contexts like this blog comment, for the sake of precision and out of deference to what I believe are valid claims to “Mormon” by other groups. But it’s unlikely that readers here would not know what LDS refers to.
    I think it’s pretty well known to general American audiences, though. I saw the Star Trek “Save the Whales” movie when it was first out in theaters, and everybody seemed to get the “LDS” joke (quote here).
  2. Of course, as long as there’s no intent to deceive, people are entitled to use whatever label they wish for themselves.
    But elsewhere, context matters; the meanings of words can vary depending on the context in which people are speaking, and it’s not helpful to use a word to mean something that’s different than what people will understand it to mean.
    So in a scholarly context, for example, it might be OK to use “Mormon” to refer to a church that has the Book of Mormon as scripture. But in general usage, applying the term “Mormon” to any church other than the CoJCoLDS is only going to confuse.
    Similarly, I might use the term “Restorationist church” here to mean basically the same thing. But in a different context, giving that phrase my meaning would only be confusing, as Joseph Smith’s restoration of Christianity hasn’t been the only one, not even the only one in 19th-century America.
    And the same could be said of the label “Christian.” In an evangelical apologetic context, it might be clear that you can call a church that worships Jesus Christ in a different way than you do as “non-Christian”; you know what’s meant by that. So go ahead and use that term there; I have no objection. But using that label for the LDS or or JW churches, for example, among the general population is only going to make you sound stupid and petty at best.
    For some reason, this reminds of a certain presidential candidate who declared last week that “corporations are people.” In some contexts, that’s a statement that makes complete sense; not only is it arguably true, but in a legal sense it can be absolutely true. In the context of where this candidate has spent most of his life, the statement wouldn’t have even been noticed.
    But this candidate made the mistake of saying it where it could be heard by a general population — and it will end up being used as a result to politically attack him. Why? Because when the context is different, the meaning is different.
  4. So in a scholarly context, for example, it might be OK to use “Mormon” to refer to a church that has the Book of Mormon as scripture. But in general usage, applying the term “Mormon” to any church other than the CoJCoLDS is only going to confuse.
    Only from the PR position of the LDS Church which doesn’t want to be identified with its own splinter groups.
    For some reason, this reminds of a certain presidential candidate who declared last week that “corporations are people.” In some contexts, that’s a statement that makes complete sense; not only is it arguably true, but in a legal sense it can be absolutely true. In the context of where this candidate has spent most of his life, the statement wouldn’t have even been noticed.
    But this candidate made the mistake of saying it where it could be heard by a general population — and it will end up being used as a result to politically attack him. Why? Because when the context is different, the meaning is different.
    As much as I just absolutely loathe Mitt Romney, the point he was making was not that corporations are people in the sense that, say, Microsoft is a person. But that Corporations are people in the sense that Microsoft is people. Everything a corporation “says” or “does” is actually said or done by a person (sharegolder, employee/agent, officer or director), and anything that affects the corporation actually just affects the people that constitute the corporation (shareholders, employees, officers, and directors), because the corporation’s legal personhood (which really only extends to the ability to own property and to sue and be sued in court) as an individual is a legal fiction whereas the fact is that the corporation is actually a collective organization of people.
    But anticorporate liberals hear it and froth at the mouth at the chance to score rhetorical points by banging on their tired “soon corporations will be voting! you love corporations more than you love babies!” crapola drum.
  5. My short answer to your final question: No. There are Mormon fundamentalists, and some of them practice polygamy. History does not always give us the bedfellows we might like, but that is tough.
  6. Kullovo –
    The issue with corporations is that some of what you are describing is a partnership. Originally the right to form a corporation, that is create a legal fictional person that could engage in commercial activity without any specific person doing so, was highly restricted. People who advocated for the return and recreation of such entities (like Adam Smith) were very careful to understand that fictional persons had properties that actual persons did not, like immortality and thus they needed additional restrictions on their activities. Adam Smith argued that joint-stock companies should only be founded to serve common goods and should have to be disbanded after 25 years.
    Joel Bakan for example has addressed the issue that corporations in their modern conception as existing solely to benefit shareholders are essentially institutional psychopaths.
    So, Romney was wrong. There are collections of people working together, those are called partnerships. Corporations are people in a very different sense.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity