I’m not sure either, where Monty is questioning Siege’s usage, so I"m curious too.
Poly, you’re not quite accurate there. “Latter-day Saints” refers to modern-day members of the Church. That is, we are the Saints of the latter days, which is now, being later than before. (And the term ‘saint’ means disciple of Christ, not the way Catholics use it. Confusing, I know.) So the Church of Jesus Christ is the eternal true church, and we are the Church of the latter days. The Nephites would have been Nephite Saints, and then there were the Primitive Saints of the Primitive Church right after Christ’s death and resurrection. (I’m not sure how you refer to that time period, but we use the term ‘primitive’–as in first, not as in caveman-like.)
Anyway, the term ‘saint’ can refer to any time period, but ‘Mormon,’ a casual nickname, is specifically modern. You couldn’t call the real Mormon a Mormon and make sense. We can also be called LDS, and I generally use the two interchangeably. Officially, LDS is preferable to Mormon, especially for the press. The media get so many things wrong about us anyway, but the Church does try to get them to use a real term instead of an inaccurate nickname.
Thanks, genie. I used “latter day saints” with reference to modern Mormons a couple of years ago, and got ‘corrected’ on it by Snark Hunter, son of a Mormon bishop with significant mental problems (him, not his father – and I only mention that as a possible explanation of why he might have said what he did).
Do you guys in general see “Mormon” used neutrally as a distinguisher like Episcopalian or Methodist as in any way offensive? I want to be courteous, but it is a bit easier to type!
BTW, Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans mean the same thing as you by “saint” – a sinner saved by the grace of God, synonymous with believing Christian. The folks canonized by the Vatican and recognized by the Orthodox and Anglican church members as big-S Saints are simply those from among the communion of saints who are generally recognized as examplars from whom the rest of us can learn how better to follow Christ.
Poly: I was just pointing out that we’uns (the LDS types beholden to those ol’ guys in Utah) have the appellation I indicated. I know that Siege meant no offense, and I took no offense.
I don’t know anyone who considers it offensive to be called Mormon–we generally use it ourselves. It’s just kind of inaccurate, since we don’t worship Mormon. The only problem I’ve ever really seen with it is that some of the nastier people try to say that we do worship Mormon (or Joseph Smith, or a demon, or whatever). Also, many many people don’t realize that the Mormons and the CoJCoLDS are the same people. On the whole, however, we don’t mind.
If no one else does it first, I’ll come back later and explain about the RLDS church. But right now we’re going to the library.
In this discussion of LDS versus Mormon, I just want to throw out one of my favorite Star Trek lines:
As far as I understand it the Reorganized Church, like the Shia Muslims, believe that the church should be led by lineal descendants of their prophet. The Reorganized Church split off from the Utah LDS in 1852 when they chose the 12-year-old son of Joseph Smith to be their new prophet. The Reorganized Church stayed in Illinois instead of migrating West, and in 1920 they set up shop in Independence, MO, supposedly the new Zion where Christ will return to start His millenial reign.
The main differences between the Utah Church and the Reorganized Church are:
(1) Belief in the mainstream Trinity (three Persons in one God) instead of the Elohim doctrine (three distinct, separate Persons)
(2) Rejection of Temple ordinances
(3) Women can be priests
(4) Acceptance of 3/4 of the Quad
I’m sure the LDS folks can correct my errors and give a clearer picture of the differences between the two churches.
That’s pretty much correct about the RLDS Church, and I don’t claim to be an expert at all. They changed their name a few years back to the Community of Christ (CoC). They didn’t start up right when the rest of the Saints took off for Utah, but a few years later. They stayed with the lineal descent thing for quite a while–when the only heir was a woman (I think about 20 years ago now), they changed to allow women to be priests. The current heir rejected the title of prophet for himself a few years back, so they are no longer claiming to have a living prophet. They don’t use as much of the Doctrine and Covenants as we do, and don’t accept the Pearl of Great Price at all.
The other big thing about the RLDS Church was that they rejected polygamy completely, and in fact refused to believe for a very long time that Joseph Smith was a polygamist at all. (Apparently, that was based on Joseph III’s questioning of his mother, Emma, a few weeks before she died. He asked her whether his father was an adulterer, and she said no. Which doesn’t really clear up the picture at all. Emma was no friend of polygamy, but I doubt that she ever would have called it adultery.)
The CoC has been moving more towards mainstream Christianity and further away from the Mormon end of things for a long time now. The Community of Christ can be found at www.cofchrist.org .
Oh, and Siege, I know it was directed at His4ever.
Personally, I’d like to ask her this-while I don’t consider divorce a sin, well, you obviously had to leave your first marriage.
BUT…according to the literalist interpretations you insist on, you should have stayed in your second. Therefore, by using your absolutism, you are a whore and an adultress.
Wait a minute! You’ve got me all wrong. This is your kind-hearted, ever-lovin’, “cruelty is a sin” Seige you’re talking about. I never planned on or wanted to get named to the Page’o’Flames. A few years ago, I would have argued that losing my temper like that was a sin, and I still know full well I wasn’t loving my neighbor as myself, or at least not the one it was directed at. Besides, I’m the most even-tempered one in my family.
Monty, genie, thanks for the clarification. As I’ve mentioned, I spent quite a few years in Hawaii where the Church of Latter-day Saints has a fairly large following (although I hear that their habit of rooting against BYU may be considered suspicious to heretical;)), but I’ve heard the term spoken more than I’ve read it. I heard both “Mormon” and “LDS” used there, but “Mormon” has felt more comfortable when I was reaching for a noun this past week. At any rate, while I may not agree with you, I hope you don’t mind if I do defend you. You see, I very much agree with the guy who wasn’t Voltaire.
By the way, Monty, when I re-read your post, I got a picture of someone patting me on the head kind of like they’d pat a lap dog or a small child and saying, “Awww. Cwute widdle Seigie.” Given my recent behaviour, I’ll leave the punchline up to you.
I find it very interesting that certain fundamentalist Christians regard it as heretical to use any Bible other than the one that was commissioned by a gay Catholic.
The way I look at it, expressions of anger and hostility are like surgery – you need to try everything else before you go in with the knife, but occasionally it’s necessary to get at a deep-seated problem that doesn’t respond to non-invasive treatment.
His4Ever has not been back. Though I fear she’s seeking affirmation of her attitude, I pray that her eyes were opened by the bluntness of normally-soft-spoken Siege, and that she takes that flame as an act of tough love – the proverbial “knock up alongside the head” to break through her preconceptions and bring across a message that I believe she needs badly to hear, quite literally for Christ’s sake.
Oh, she’ll always be back. She just want realistically address anything posted to her here. She’ll either ignore it outright or talk around it. I doubt she’ll ever “shake the dust from her feet” and leave us heathens alone here on the Dope. Because we need her, dontcha know? :rolleyes:
Siege, that was one of the best Pit posts I’ve ever seen. Deliberately spreading lies in the name of Christ has got to be one of the worst things one of his adherents can do! I’m only afraid that she didn’t listen.
I’ve often thought that Christ – and other founders of religions – must be out there somewhere metaphorically beating their heads against a wall in frustration at what a minority of people do in their names.
Non-fundamentalist Christianity has generally stayed quiet while the fundamentalists did their thing. There are times, though, where speaking up in anger is better than staying quiet. I’m not Christian, but this read to me like one of those times. Having been reading this thread, I felt better just knowing that somebody had finally SAID what I’d been thinking – and did it in a Christian context, which surely she couldn’t completely ignore!
I too pray that she is off somewhere thinking about her actions. The last thing on Earth I would do would be to convert to her sort of Christianity, based on her behavior here. And yet she just doesn’t see that. Excuse me while I go beat my head against a wall for awhile.
I think that’s my fault, folks. I flat out told her that her absence here would be no punishment.
She can’t realistically address jack. She has zero grounding in study of Scripture, zero grounding in Comparative Religion, zero grounding in History, zero grounding in…well, you name it, she has zero grounding in it.
She’s afraid of stuff she doesn’t understand. Given that she understands nil, she must be quaking in her boots!
You know, hopefool (cool username, btw), you’ve hit upon something that these jerks are really starting to convince me of. I don’t think they want to come here–it’s more that they’re sent here by their pastors, to “save us heathens.” They’re the 21st Century Fundamentalist movement’s version of the Children’s Crusade.
Just goes to prove that preview -and- spell check doesn’t always necessarily do the trick. ::: sigh ::: Damn typos.
But Monty, you are right, probably on all counts. I wouldn’t be surprised if H4E does or doesn’t pop back into this thread (under the criteria discussed above), but undoubtedly, she WILL show back up in the next one that even narrowly broaches anything remotely touching religion and then pretend that she has no idea why everyone objects to how she ‘talks’ or why we’re all out to get her/just don’t like what she has to say/etc., ad infintum/pick one. Like Ah-nuld, she’ll be back! Just start a countdown on which topic it’ll be about… homosexuality, Harry Potter, blasphemy, you name it, our deliverer will be there to show us the error of our evil ways because we’ve never heard it before and we just need her witness to save us.
[/Jack Chick School of Reasoning]
P.S. Thanks. Glad you like my name and in this particular never-ending saga, seems eerily like a terrible oxymoron.
I think, in all fairness to ____'s4Ever, and even the evangelists in the OP, they are sincerely trying to save us from something much worse than the worst fate imaginable. They sincerely believe that our souls are at risk and it is of paramount importance that we repent and turn to God. I get the impression the aforementioned young lady also believes that Polycarp and I are leading you down the wrong paths and endangering your souls because of our misguided beliefs. I don’t think she fully understands what she’s doing or why some people here find it so objectionable. Remember that this is a woman who’s not good at critical thinking or empathy, and who needs to have bright, sharp lines drawn between what is good. Any blurring of those lines is a threat with unspeakable consequences. There was a time when I would have said I don’t think she intends evil. I’m no longer quite so sure of that, but I think what she’s trying to do is pigeon hole us into some neat little slot, preferably on the white side of her black-and-white world, and she doesn’t understand why we refuse to budge (I’m more of a hunter green, myself). I don’t think she understands how I can be just as firmly convicted of my faith as she is and almost as able to cite scripture to support it, and yet still be completely and utterly wrong.
She wants to save our souls and bring us into the salvation that is Christ. In all fairness, part of me wants to do the same for her. If I can’t grasp why I would want to become like her, that statement goes both ways. The notion that I, a so-called Christian, would prefer the company of sinners like HJay or, I assume, Guinastasia or Gobear is ridiculous to her, just as I suspect I would not be happy or comfortable around members of her church (and you don’t want to picture what I’d be like around her first husband!).
She’s trying (don’t say it, Polycarp!). She’s succeeding about as well as Japan succeeded in taking the US out of World War II when they attacked Pearl Harbor, but she’s trying, as are the evangelists in the OP. I just wish that God in all His wisdom and power would give these people a clue about how to do it right. OK, may be not a clue. How about a set of written directions signed by God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit Him/Themselves? No, not that one.
CJ
By the way, hopefool, I’m someone else who likes and identifies with your handle!
We can also be called LDS, and I generally use the two interchangeably. Officially, LDS is preferable to Mormon, especially for the press. The media get so many things wrong about us anyway, but the Church does try to get them to use a real term instead of an inaccurate nickname.
Just goes to prove that preview -and- spell check doesn’t always necessarily do the trick. ::: sigh ::: Damn typos.