fcw@druxu.UUCP (02/17/85)
As is usually the case, recent reseach has been totally ignored
concerning just what Mormons and related groups should be
classified as by non-Mormons.
Most Mormon bodies (LDS, RLDS, Bickertonite, Strangite, etc.)
will view themselves as a restoration of the original Christianity.
One should not expect other religious groups to accept that claim.
At the same time, it is just much too easy to use the term CULT
on the Mormons. We have to define CULT in some narrow way so
as to exclude all so-called Orthodox Christian groups. Look
up CULT in the dictionary. What stops any relgious group from being
called a CULT? Dr. Walter Martin and others who write anti-Mormon
books have had to re-define CULT to force its application to
ONLY those groups outside main-steam Protestanism/Catholicism,
which would include Mormons.
Well, the LDS, at least, have no desire to be considered either
Protestant or Catholic. So we seem to have a point of agreement.
Are they not Christian? They hold up Christ as a central point
in their theology. Joseph Smith did not say "Here, I am the Christ."
His theology, regardless of where it was derived, consistantly
held up Christ as Saviour. The Book of Mormon and the Inspired
Version of the Bible emphasis the role of Christ to a much higher
degree than the Protestant/Catholic versions of the Bible. (DO
not believe me? Read them then). I am not saying that this
makes Mormonism true or false, I am saying that many so-called
Orthodox Christians who smugly declare Mormonism non-Christian
are simply taking someon elses word for it.
Jan Shipps, former President of the Mormon Historical Society
(who is not now nor never has been a member of any of the 100
or so Mormon groups) recently published a book setting forth
the thesis that Mormonism should be regarded as a new religious
tradition much as Christianity is regarded as a separate religious
tradition form Judaism. Maybe this is a good place to start.
I am sure that early Christians were regarded as a CULT fo Essenes
or something like that by their "Orthodox" Jewish contemporaries.
An unrelated note: Dr. Michael Quinn of BYU pointed out that
Joseph Smith suggested several forms of sucession before his
assasination. The Salt Lake LDS and related groups accepted
the one that he suggested in which the Senior-most Apostle
would accend to the Presidency of the Church. The Missouri-base
RLDS accepted an alternative in which the eldest son would
be Joseph's successor. Joseph Smith's son was never ordained
in the strictest sense of the word (by his own admission), but
rather blessed that should he live worthily we would eventually
assend to his father's place. Even Brigham Young acknowleged
this. It was not until young Joseph Smith III joined forces
with former Strangite (yet another group) members
to form the RLDS Church that Brigham Young realized that Joseph's
name-sake would not be comming to Salt Lake City.
There are so many other things stated in the dialog that has
gone on here so far that I could disagree with but I will let
this suffice.
Craig Wolverton
As always, my expressions here are my own and not those of
my employer or anyone else.
Brigham Young turned his back on JS III.