Finally...oh wait...you answered 'yes' AND 'no'....

President newsroom says they are not.
But that seems hollow given they sprang from the same source as the Salt Lake division of Joseph Smith's religion.

In fact the Church with Monson at the helm is probably the furthest removed from Joseph's church and so probably has the least valid claim on the term 'Mormon'.

So, LDS is not valid as Mormons, not valid as Christians, could we go with 'other'?

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines "Mormon" as:"Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints or of a sect closely related to it..."

As much as I hate to agree with Buffalo, this is a fair representation. FLDS, RLDS, and so on are Mormons. Each break-off represents some peculiar doctrine that their followers adhere to. Even main-stream Mormonism could be considered a branch of Mormonism too in its much more conservative themes than early Mormonism had.

The current Latter Day Saint sect based in Salt Lake is the one that least resembles the Church Joseph set up. Now if that is a sign of evolving doctrine in Gods true Church, then the Catholic Church has an equal claim for the same reason, to being Gods true Church. If the Catholic Church's evolution of doctrines and practice is a sign of apostasy, well then....you get the point.

The most common usage of Mormon is in relation to the LDS church and to a lesser extent the FLDS when polygamy is being talked about these days. It is not surprising that they would define it this way, but does that mean FLDS or RLDS cannot be legitimately called Mormons. Like I said to sub, Mormon is not owned by the LDS church regardless of what claims they have over it.

Actually I think the RLDS-Community of Christ is further away than the Brigham branch and always has been since they reject most of what Joseph Jr did in Nauvoo.

My .02 on the opening post is you can call yourself what ever you want when it comes to religion and politics. You're looking for consistency in a world view dominated by contradictions.

The LDS Church can falsely assert to its heart's content that "Mormon" is a trademark owned by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. But it isn't. IRI's application to trademark "Mormon" was denied.

http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPa ... /false#p=1

Well, we could pose the question from the opening post to our resident expert in constitutional law, subgenius.

OR, we could pose the question to Richard L. Bushman, a faithful member of the LDS Church who is the Howard W. Hunter Visiting Professor in Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University.

Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction, Pages 13-14

Varieties of Mormonism

Mormonism now consists of scores of independent factions that have emerged over the years. The church bearing the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, is only the largest entity in a broad movement. A number of separate groups sprang up in the decades after Joseph Smith's death in 1844 when there was a contest to succeed him as president of the church. After Brigham Young led the largest contingent west to the Great Basin in 1847, a substantial number of Mormons who stayed behind formed the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints under Joseph Smith's son. Known since 2001 as the Community of Christ, this branch of Mormonism is headquartered in Independence, Missouri.

In the early twentieth century, another major split took place following the abandonment of plural marriage in 1890. So-called fundamentalist groups held on to polygamy and claimed to continue authentic Mormonism. They believed that the main body of the church had strayed. The fundamentalists are the groups now notorious in the press for their practice of plural marriage in opposition to anti-bigamy laws.

These divergent wings of the Mormon movement exemplify the complex forces operating within Mormonism to this day.

expand you mind and your geographic knowledge....

In some countries, Mormon and some phrases including the term are registered trademarks owned by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. ....
the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application, stating that the term "Mormon" was too generic, and is popularly understood as referring to a particular kind of church, similar to "Presbyterian" or "Methodist", rather than a service mark. The application was abandoned as of August 22, 2007. In all, the Intellectual Reserve, Inc. owns more than 60 trademarks related to the term Mormon.

As is his wont, subgenius again calls other people uninformed in the very course of demonstrating that he has no idea what he is talking about.

The opening post is asking about "Mormon" being a broad category of religion that includes the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Subgenius' trademark reference is non-responsive, but he doesn't understand that, or he wouldn't have referred to it. Intellectual Reserve does not own the word "Mormon." What IRI has trademarked is only a certain, specific way of writing the word "Mormon."

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f= ... m8v4r.2.11

That trademark does not mean other people or denominations cannot use the word "Mormon." It only means that they have to use a different design when they write the word.

There are numerous trademarks based on the word "Mormon."

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f= ... bmit+Query

You're only proving that you don't know what a trademark is. You never would have brought this up if you did.

Intellectual Reserve does not own the word "Mormon." Not any more than Lucasfilm, Ltd. owns the words "Star Wars."

Lucasfilm owns a trademark to a specific design for writing the words "Star Wars." Similarly, IRI only owns a specific design for writing the word "Mormon." The opening post is asking about what a Mormon is conceptually. Ownership of a specific design for the word "Mormon" is not relevant to the assertion by the Church that only members of the LDS Church are "Mormons."

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Intellectual Reserve isn't suing the producers of Broadway musical, The Book of Mormon, for trademark violation.

(May have something to do with IRI not owning the words "Book of Mormon.")

I believe if you actually read my post you understand that the trademark is not owned in the USA...where the play is being performed...correct?
And besides, owning a trademark in the US does not equate to exclusive use...enforcement is based on several factors, like fair use, geography, similarity, etc...but you probably knew that already...otherwise you would be making snarky comments that merely displayed your own inadequa-......er......oops

In summary, neither Intellectual Reserve, Inc., nor the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints own the word "Mormon," and you got caught asserting things you didn't understand and are now trying to bail yourself out.

There is no way you would have brought up trademarks in response to the opening post if you knew what you were talking about. I know it; everyone reading this thread knows it.

It's really simple....

1. The Associated Press stylebook (not simply the Church) states that the term "Mormon" properly only applies to the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

2. There is a reason for the above. The term "Catholic" while in a general sense can be applied to other types of Catholics, those of other religions, the PROPER usage of the term only applies to the Holy Roman Catholic Church (or whatever their proper legal name is, haven't looked recently).

3. Thus, those who are trying to use the "generic term" of "Christian" as if it's the same thing as how a particular religion or group is identified is simply a strawman. The term "Christian" has always in general referred to anyone who believed on Christ. While there was a religion he established, there were always "believers" who didn't necessary belong to that religion nor any particular religion. Christian is another word for the believers in Christ, and alway was.

If people want to use a proper comparison to the word "Mormon" they need to compare it similar to the word "Catholic". An Evangelical is not a Catholic, and likewise there are Catholics who don't necessarily belong to the Holy Sea, but still, they are not actually Catholics, because the "proper" usage of the term Catholic only and has only ever applied to those of the Church of Rome, not anyone else.

Further, it you want to compare a term that would apply to all Joseph Smith originating groups, it would have to be "Joseph Smithism". Further, Joseph Smith is not "worshiped". He is simply a Prophet and Apostle, thus to claim that Mormon must apply to everyone who has some connection to Joseph Smith, and that is somehow the same as the term Christian, which denotes a worship belief system, is again off the mark.

Get it anti-mormons???

Great, then "Christian" only applies to those who believe in the trinity.

Every Christian believes in the "Trinity".....

However, not every Christian believes in the Nicene Creed, nor have they from the beginning, especially when the Nicene Creed (aka Trinity) was officialized by the Catholic Church, not "Christians" in general.

A good half of Christiandom did not believe in the Nicene Creed when it was established.
Yes, some did fall in line after, but not all.

Even further, would it surprise you that even Mormons are able to believe in the "original" Nicene Creed?
It actually doesn't really say anything contrary to LDS theology, depending on how it's interpreted. It's the later interpretations and re-writing that makes it wrong. In it's more generic original renditioning, it was able to allow various views of the matter. For example, the "one substance" statement. To an LDS, of course Christ and the Father are "one substance", because they are literally Father and son genetically speaking, because the Father contributed his DNA. Of course, that term/interpretation was over-ridden by a false one, which became the dominant interpretation, that substance means they are the same being.

The original Nicene creed is not consistent with true LDS doctrine because:

1) It states that the Father was the creator, which is not exactly the way LDS see it, and it is also not consistent with the scriptures which teach that Christ was the creator under the direction of Heavenly Father, which is the LDS doctrine.

2) It also states that Christ is of one "essence with the Father," which is also a vague non scriptural statement.

3) It also states that Christ was "incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary," which is definitely a fairy tale false doctrine of which the prophets and apostles of the church have stated was false.

4) It also states that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father," which is true, but it is misleading since it gives the impression that He is a force life radiation, when, in fact, He is a personage of Spirit.

5) And last, but definitely not least, it professes belief in "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church." Don't get me started on that one! Well, too late! It's not one now, it split. It is definitely not holy (i.e. sale of indulgences, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.......), and it is definitely not apostolic since the apostles belong to our church.