Comments on: The use of “Mormon” https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/ Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:27:15 +0000 hourly 1 By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127988 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:27:15 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127988 Oh, there is no doubt in my mind as to why some, if not most, members disagree with my point of view.

]]> By: R. Gary https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127987 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:00:39 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127987 Kim Siever, that’s cool. I didn’t expect you to go back on your post. I just wanted explain why some of us don’t agree. Thanks for allowing the quotes.

]]> By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127986 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:19:22 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127986 R. Gary,

The points we raised above would apply to your quote equally.

]]> By: R. Gary https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127983 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:26:09 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127983 Nobody has even mentioned the LDS.org Newsroom article that was linked in the “see also” part of my earlier comment:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Disputes Media Use of “Fundamentalist Mormon”

SALT LAKE CITY Recent news reports regarding various issues related to the practice of polygamy, especially focusing on groups in Texas, Arizona and Southern Utah, have used terms such as “Mormon,” “fundamentalist Mormons,” “Mormon sect” and “polygamous Mormons” to refer to those who practice polygamy. There is no such thing as a “polygamous” Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago.

]]> By: anonymous https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127981 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:04:05 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127981 jjackson, I am sorry you view President Hinckley so cynically. I doubt I will change your mind but I believe he acted out of more than just political expediency. No other president of the church has been so open and accessible to the media. He has spoken out about issues such as intolerance, abuse, racism honestly and openly. I have greatly enjoyed as he has shared very candidly his personal thoughts and feelings with the church. I am sad to see him go.

It was nice to chat with jjackson. Made my day go by tolerably faster. The discussion was more challenging than my day job.

]]> By: jjackson https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127979 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:34:19 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127979 Maybe he just didn’t really understand what the term “fundamentalist” meant, then? Because it’s an accurate description. Or maybe he just didn’t think very deeply about it because in a general conference setting he was awfully used to not ever having to face a challenge to anything that came out of his mouth. Or, more likely, he was fully aware of the definition of fundamentalist and was acting politically rather than academically in his statement. Like I’ve said above, there was a reason he said what he said, and he did it on purpose, for a purpose. This doesn’t in any way mean the statement is correct, just that it was intended.

I think Pres. Hinckley would agree with the way I see both terms, but putting that forward publicly would not have suited his purposes, so instead he said something that did.

]]> By: anonymous https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127978 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 23:19:47 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127978 I don’t think President Hinckley would ever suggest the FLDS do not exist. Such a view would be putting ones head in the sand.

I think he would disagree with you about the meaning of fundamentalist. That is a very philosophically charged word and depending how you interpret that definition you may come to different conclusions.

I think President Hinckley might agree with you on a broad use of the term Mormon but I think the term fundamentalist is term at issue.

]]> By: jjackson https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127977 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:55:08 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127977 Suppose there is a big schism in my family over….eating meat. The main group continues to eat meat and the break-off group goes vegan. Now suppose that I am the recognized leader of the meat eating group. Wishing to delineate the distinction between MY group of “Jacksons” and the OTHER group of “Jacksons”, I say, “There is no such thing as a vegan Jackson. To use the two words together is a contradiction.”

I would not be wrong in terms of putting forward my group’s philosophical position regarding the level of disconnect between the groups. But for me to say that there is no connection between the groups, and that the break-off group has no claim to the name by which the world knows us all would be incorrect. Because of course, there would be vegan Jacksons. They’d be right there to see, just like we have lots of fundamentalist mormons to observe as a way of proving their existence.

]]> By: jjackson https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127976 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:48:40 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127976 President Hinckley can accurately reflect the church’s position and still be wrong. And he was wrong when he said that. He was “right” that the institutional church’s aim is to have a monopoly on the term “mormon” and that said church wants no connecting lines drawn between the two groups, particularly in media discourse. He made a philosophical point about the dividing line he was drawing. He was just wrong about the fact that there are no “mormon” fundamentalists. Because, quite simply, there ARE.

]]> By: anonymous https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2010/02/17/the-use-of-mormon/comment-page-1/#comment-127973 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:39:01 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/?p=2232#comment-127973 jjackson in reply to post #1 R Gary quote by President Hinckley that “Pres. Hinckley was simply wrong when he said that”.

I looked up the quote in General Conference Archives and I simply do not understand what he was wrong about the quote.

President Hinckley states the churches position on polygamy. Unless you don’t believe President Hinckley is answering that question correctly how is President Hinckley wrong?

]]>