Although I understand the reasons for it, I regret the impulse to let PR direct our behavior toward the FLDS and others. It is certainly inconvenient and even embarassing for members of the Church to be constantly confused with the unsavory practices of the FLDS in the media but even all the emphasis that we currently put on PR maneuvers still do not prevent the press from lumping us all together and sneering at our religious beliefs. And our focus on PR then makes us look priggish rather than charitable.

OK, Nick, I’m just going to say this: Your persistent use of the expression “LDS-ism” to describe the Mormon faith offends me, and probably others here who are too polite to call you to task.

It’s particularly ironic in a thread which defends everyone’s right to self-identify as they wish. How many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would describe their faith as LDS-ism?

Please stop doing that, Nick. Thank you.

Like other Latter-day Saints prior to 1978 – Mormon Fundamentalists do not extend the Priesthood to those men they believe are descendants of Cain. They consider them to be just as much God’s children, and believe they shall one day have that opportunity, but do not believe that time has yet come.

This is because 1) statements attributed to Joseph Smith and publicly repeated by Brigham Young indicating they shall not receive the Priesthood at least until some time during the millennium 2) they do not recognize the authority of Spencer W. Kimball to ‘overturn’ Brigham’s teachings.

I know you love Joseph, Nick. I think you’re projecting.

~

Granted, but I was answering the question as it was asked, rather than trying to slam the person who asked it.

Furthermore, JS seemed more likely to welcome innovation than some of the later prophets who seem to have actually implemented innovation.

The difference, however, is that Joseph favored progressive innovations/revelations, rather than PR statements that relegate earlier revelations to “speculation by early members.” Sadly, the LDS treatment of Joseph Smith’s teachings has been a long process of unrevelation.

Honestly, if Joseph Smith Jr. was to come visiting the various faiths which claim to descend from his teachings, I strongly believe he would conclude that the faith he taught had been lost to the earth.

If the faith Joseph espoused were true, he wouldn’t need to “come back” at all, as he would be well aware in the Spirit World as to what is going on in the Latter-day work. Furthermore, JS seemed more likely to welcome innovation than some of the later prophets who seem to have actually implemented innovation.

Honestly, if Joseph Smith Jr. was to come visiting the various faiths which claim to descend from his teachings, I strongly believe he would conclude that the faith he taught had been lost to the earth.

It was Gordon Hinckley, of course, who famously declared that there was “no such thing” as a Fundamentalist Mormon, as these people were supposedly not “Mormons.” It was an unfortunate choice of public relations spin, since it is incredibly reminiscent of those so-called “mainstream” christians who declare that LDS are not “christians.” Hinckley’s declaration was particularly perplexing, given that he spent many years declaring that LDS should not refer to themselves as the “Mormons” or “Mormon church.” Of course, the LDS church’s intellectual property holding company has now sought to trademark “Mormon.”

Just as LDS expect to be considered “christians” based on their own self-identification, Fundamentalist Mormons expect to be considered “Mormons,” based on their own self-identification.

Further, you may be surprised to know that the majority of Fundamentalist Mormons do not fit your description of “apostates” and “ex-members of the LDS church.” The majority are born into their respective faiths, just as the majority of LDS are born into that faith. They never “apostatized” from a faith (LDS-ism) that they never belonged to.

I had thought this article was more recent than 1978, but I must be remembering incorectly.