Are FLDS Mormons?

[_Bazooka]

One criteria for membership in the "Mormon Church" might be valid baptism.

There's no such thing as the "Mormon Church".
There's Mormonism, a descriptor used to label the religious communities at whose core is the scripture known as the Book of Mormon.
There's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members are commonly referred to as "Mormons" (as are members of the FLDS).
But there's no Mormon Church.
Your opening sentence appears to be a very lame attempt at constructing a straw man.

The FLDS derive their authority to baptize through a priesthood line advanced by Lorin Woolley in the 1920s.

Actually the FLDS can trace their authority all the way back to Joseph Smith and can argue that it was the Latter-day sect that moved away from the core tenets of the Church that Joseph set up.

The line is very problematic from a historical and doctrinal view.

Not really.
The Latter-day Saint line is infinitely more problematic from a historical and doctrinal view when compared to the religion that Joseph Smith set up.

Importantly, if it is invalid, then their baptisms are not valid (D&C 22:1-2) and they could not claim to be "Mormons" in the same sense that Joseph Smith or individuals who have valid baptisms today are "Mormons."

The FLDS members are more aligned to what Joseph would understand as being "Mormon". If anyones baptismal validity needs to be looked at (in light of its comparison to the Church that Joseph Smith set up) it's the Latter-day Saint splinter sect, as they are the furthest removed from the original.

Your question should be "Are Latter-day Saints 'Mormon' in the sense that they practice the religion the way Joseph Smith practiced Mormonism?"
The answer would be no.
For the FLDS the answer would be yes.

[_Pattertwig]

One criteria for membership in the "Mormon Church" might be valid baptism. The FLDS derive their authority to baptize through a priesthood line advanced by Lorin Woolley in the 1920s. The line is very problematic from a historical and doctrinal view. Importantly, if it is invalid, then their baptisms are not valid (D&C 22:1-2) and they could not claim to be "Mormons" in the same sense that Joseph Smith or individuals who have valid baptisms today are "Mormons."

If you're LDS, then of course you should not see their baptisms as valid, since neither their baptisms nor their conveying of the priesthood is valid if they reject the living prophet who holds all the keys.

Mormon can mean a bunch of things based on context..

It's like asking if humans are animals. Well yes biologically, but not for the purposes of some discussions, e.g. what distinguishes humans from the animals.

Best answer I can think of is that FLDS are apostate Mormons.

[_RockSlider]

One criteria for membership in the "Mormon Church" might be valid baptism. The FLDS derive their authority to baptize through a priesthood line advanced by Lorin Woolley in the 1920s. The line is very problematic from a historical and doctrinal view. Importantly, if it is invalid, then their baptisms are not valid (D&C 22:1-2) and they could not claim to be "Mormons" in the same sense that Joseph Smith or individuals who have valid baptisms today are "Mormons."

This also begs the question of if anyone baptized into the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints after December of 2014, after the Lord had wrested the keys from the LDS church apostles and Presidency and gave them over to Denver Snuffer are Mormons.

[_Zadok]

What ever happened to the command from on high that we were not to refer to ourselves as the "Mormon Church" anyway? Was it not for the exact reason for which you are now using it instead of what you were instructed to call it in specifically these kind of cases?

I also remember when this was the instruction from on high. I think it has fallen by the wayside simply the church finally saw it as a lost cause. Similar to Kleenex vs. Tissue, or Xerox vs. Photocopy, or Zipper vs. Button-less Fastening System. The church wanted to be "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", but Mormon was just too easy and convenient.

[_grindael]

Actually, in D&C 107 it says,

And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood; And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God"

Young claimed,

[p.165] Here is President Rigdon, who was counselor to Joseph. I ask, where are Joseph and Hyrum? They are gone beyond the veil; and if Elder Rigdon wants to act as his counselor, he must go beyond the veil where he is …. If the people want President Rigdon to lead them they may have him; but I say unto you that the Quorum of the Twelve have the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world.

But Rigdon did have the keys.

3. And again, verily I say unto thy brethren Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams, their sins are forgiven them also, and they are accounted as equal with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom: as also through your administration the keys of the school of the prophets, which I have commanded to be organized, that thereby they may be perfected in their ministry for the salvation of Zion, and of the nations of Israel, and of the Gentiles, as many as will believe, that through your administration, they may receive the word, and through their administration, the word may go forth unto the ends of the earth, unto the Gentiles first, and then behold, and lo, they shall turn unto the Jews: and then cometh the day when the arm of the Lord shall be revealed in power in convincing the nations, the heathen nations, the house of Joseph of the gospel of their salvation. (Doctrine and Covenants (1835), Section 84:4)

So they needed to remove Rigdon for TRANSGRESSION for it to be legitimate. What did Rigdon do to be removed in 1844? He was "...disfellowshipped for "Making a Division in the Church [by] ordaining Prophets, Priests & Kings contrary to the Say of God." Quinn writes,

The apostles prepared to publicly excommunicate him on 8 September 1844. Young explained to the congregation that Rigdon was being tried by a special council defined in the Doctrine and Covenants as the proper body to "sit in judgement [sic] against any of the first presidency."126 Rigdon's excommunication was ironic. By convening this special council, the apostles acknowledged his claim that the First Presidency was still intact and that Rigdon was still first counselor. (D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p.168)

So did they exercise unrighteous dominion and lose their priesthood authority? Hmmm.

[_moksha]

I don't think you can trademark a nickname, even if it has become well associated with a brand. Say for instance, Levi Strauss wanted to trademark the terms blue jeans or just jeans, those terms are simply not exclusive to the brand.

Since the FLDS use the same book from which the nickname was derived, they are covered under the doctrine of "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet".

[_ludwigm]

the doctrine of "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet".

The telestial curelom eats neas and sheum out of ziff dishes

[_Symmachus]

BrianHales,

Could you explain why this question interests you? It is my understanding that FLDS don't even claim to be Mormons or members of the "Mormon Church" [sic], which a fortiori is enough to justify a statement that they are not Mormons.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

The FLDS are more "Mormon" than the SLC Mormons.

If Joseph Smith came back today, he would pick the FLDS.

[_Quasimodo]

The FLDS are more "Mormon" than the Salt Lake City Mormons.

If Joseph Smith came back today, he would pick the FLDS.

On the other hand one central aspect of Mosmonism is to receive modern and current revelations, and the authority of the president, prophet, seer, and revelator of the LDS church is inviolable or sacrosanct. See DoC, the official declaration 1. You certainly know it's based on President Wilford Woodruff's advice in Sept. / Oct., 1894.

I'm not sure that Joseph would choose the FLDS, because it would make him very disturbing there exists a much bigger Mormon denomination with millions of members, and they love him so much that they've built a personality cult around him with hymns like "Praise to the Man..." and many others.

And what about the temples? What is that hinterland-like Hildale / Colorado City in comparison with SLC or San Diego or other grand places with their impressing temples? No, Joseph would think big and he certainly knew where to go.

I love the 'what if' game.

If he were alive today, would Joseph Smith prefer to be the leader of a small group of subsistence ranchers in Southern Utah/ Northern Arizona or the Corporation Sole of a multi-billion dollar mega-corporation?