The HBO series Big Love is about a polygamous family from a Mormon splinter group, schismatic from the LDS Church, which still practicies polygamy. Apparently it’s based on the FLDS – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints. But I would suppose the traditions, doctrines and terminology are fundamentally similar. They use some terms the meaning of which is unclear to me:
What is “the Principle”?
What is a “Journey”?
What is “Eternity” and “Time”? Is “Eternity” just another way of saying “Heaven” or “the afterlife,” or do Mormons have some fundamentally different conception of the afterlife as being something outside of time the way Spaceland is outside of Flatland?
*Disclaimer: The sect portrayed in Big Love is not Mormon.
That being said, “the Principle” is multiple marriage; i.e., having more than one wife at the same time.
In Section 132 of the Doctrine & Covenants, there is a distinction made between time and eternity. Essentially, time is this life and eternity includes this life and the afterlife.
They’re not? What are they supposed to be then? I thought what the OP did, that they were a splinter group of Mormon’s that were not recognized by, I guess you’d say, “more traditional Mormons.”
Sure it is. The word “Mormon” can refer to any or all of the churches using the Book of Mormon as scripture. What you probably mean to say is that the sect isn’t formally affiliated with the largest Mormon church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But the OP already said as much.
If you take the LDS church as the final and supreme arbiter on the semantics of the English language, yes. But most people don’t. Common usage determines the meaning of words, and the use of “Mormon” to mean adherents of any offshoot of Joseph Smith’s religion is pretty well-established.
Read John Krakauer’s “Under the Banner of Heaven” if you want to learn about Mormonism. There are fundamentalist mormons who claim to be strictly following the principals of the founder Joseph Smith. There are few of these left as they have and continue to be persecuted for their unorthodox beliefs.
The Church of LDS is a more modern version of Mormonism that does not espouse polygamy.
They are all Mormons.
So? The Catholic Church could (and, for a long time, did, IIRC) declare officially that the word “Christian” applies only to Catholics.* That would not make it so.
*Just as, among U.S. Protestants, “Papist” once was used as an antonym for “Christian.”
AND many Mormons would call themselves Christians, where many Catholic or Protestant denominations would consider the LDS church and it’s offshoots as outside of Christian orthodoxy. But then again, the LDS church would consider Catholicism and Protestantism outside of Christian orthodoxy…
Well, Bill is kind of a lapsed/exiled member, but he was raised in the Compound and his relatives are there. He would never have considered plural marriage otherwise.
In the real world, there are lots of “independant” Mormon polygamists which are not LDS (obviously) and not part of any other organized church. That’s what Bill is supposed to be.
Really now? I’d think that if your assertion were the case then it would be reflected in, perhaps, this dictionary entry. Said entry certainly seems to support the LDS view of the usage of the word in question.
All members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints call themselves Christians. Not only is Jesus the central aspect of our worship, we covenant every time we take the Sacrament to “take upon [ourselves]” His name. Check out the Sacrament prayer for the bread:
We have no problem being considered outside of traditional Christianity as we believe that our brand of Christianity is a restoration of the original church. Whether we are correct or not on that assertion has no bearing on the simple fact that we worship Christ.
p.s. ChipsNDip, I was just stipulating in Post #16 what I understand my church’s teaching to be. Quoting your post was just a more convenient way for me to do it.
I home you excuse my saying so, Monty but s aggravating as it may be for y’all, it’s bound to be about as succesful in getting people to use the institutional terminology properly, who are outside the institution, as it is to make them start saying “hook and pile fastener” instead of “Velcro”.
I’m a pretty big proponant of the “people are what they say they are” school. Do the people in question call themselves Mormon? I’ve met at least one person from an LDS-offshoot church who said she was a Latter Day Saint (belongong as she did to the “Reconstituted Church of Latter-Day Saints,” or some such), but not a Mormon. If the people in question don’t call themselves Mormon, and the people who call themselves Mormon don’t consider them Mormon, then I’d say Montys got a pretty strong case that they ain’t Mormon!
Given the history of the LDS church, one may assume they are more than a bit sensitive on this point and that they may protest too much as to practices that were part and parcel of the Smith/Young days (not just polygamy, “blood atonement” and the characteristics necessary to be a member of the priesthood) are ideas that have been renounced or substantially changed in the past ~100 years and that are or may be held by various sects who certainly believe themselves to be the lineal heirs of Jos. Smith/B.Y. and thus of the “Mormon”/LDS tag.
