Deseret News | LDS Church hopes videos will help distinguish it from FLDS

Reader comments
LDS Church hopes videos will help distinguish it from FLDS

162 comments | Read story

Anyone? | 6:35 p.m. June 26, 2008

Can anyone explain how I should take D&C 132? It is pretty clear to me.

kenny | 6:37 p.m. June 26, 2008

I watched the video. I thought it was good but was also not impressed.I know why alot of people in the church help those in need and its not for the love of mankind, its to be seen with their peers and recieve that warm fuzzy feeling. Nothing really wrong with that but I think we need to raise our own bar and reach out to people because we truly feel a need and desire to do so.I think LDS members in Texas should have been allowed,by calling,to go in and offer assistiance to those FLDS church members durning their time of need and separation from their children.

Good thing! | 6:40 p.m. June 26, 2008

I'm glad the Church is making this video. I know I have a hard time telling the two religions apart.

Comments continue below

To Venom | 6:44 p.m. June 26, 2008

People have venom because hypocrisy does indeed matter. The LDS church still believes in Polygamy. If you don't believe that, read Section 132 of the D&C. Then, go sit in the temple and listen very closely. It's completely disingenuous for the LDS church to distance itself publicly from something it continues to embrace in its most sacred settings.

Let's see how hard the thought police are working tonight and see if this gets published.

Just curious | 6:43 p.m. June 26, 2008

So how much money is being spent to make and distribute this video?

Why all the fuss? | 6:43 p.m. June 26, 2008

I don't understand all the anger against polygamy. It seems fine for our former President to have sex with interns and fornication is applauded by many, maybe most in this country. Why all the moral outrage against polygamy? Same sex "marriage" is noble and a "righteous" cause by many. Why hate polygamists and embrace all the rest? Me, I am just very happy to live the law of chastity and only have one spouse!

Paul in MD | 6:45 p.m. June 26, 2008

To Comeuppance, 3:42 - sooo, because a church encourages its members to stand up for what they are taught to be true, you are going to spread lies and rumors about the church? Interesting set of values.

Go Mormons! | 6:55 p.m. June 26, 2008

Best of luck with your new video and convincing the world of how wonderful you truly are!

Paul in MD | 7:09 p.m. June 26, 2008

To Bingo - anything can look like the truth if you make it look like a quote. But it doesn't mean a thing if you don't give us a reference so we can look it up, so we can verify these things for ourselves, and verify the context of the "quote". Your text could have been written by anyone, at any time, including by you this afternoon.

Without references, all you have is rumor.

Ridgerunner | 7:11 p.m. June 26, 2008

To go Mormons: Most of us aren't wonderful but we are trying hard. Most of us truly believe our religion is wonderful and struggle to measure up to it's standard. Some in the church can't or choose not to measure up. The thing is, most of us just insist on defining our religion ourselves and don't accept some re-definitions of our religion by others. I am certain you do the same with your life as everyone does. In other words, don't let anyone else define the value of what you believe and we won't either!

Anonymous | 7:13 p.m. June 26, 2008

This is a welcome and needed clarification from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Many in the world do not know even the most simple basic beliefs of the LDS Church nor any of its history.

As a practicing Anglican when the LDS missionaries came to my door in 1969, I had never before that even heard of the LDS Church or the Book of Mormon.

Until this raid in Texas I had never heard of FLDS, nor had I any concept of the extent of the practice of Polygamy today... I had thought there were just one or two men, whose stories I had seen in the papers, who had entered into Polygamy because of wanting to have more than one wife, and that somehow a few women had been talked into going along with it.

I spent most of last year travelling America, visited all of the LDS Historic Sites, spending lots of time in each area. A fortnight in Nauvoo. A month at Far West/ Independence Missouri. Rented a home at Park City for three months. Explored Utah... so my lack of knowledge of this situation was not because of isolation in Australia :-))

Paul in MD | 7:19 p.m. June 26, 2008

To re:Benjamin @ 5:53 - You misunderstand us. We will not support groups who practice things we believe should not be practiced. We do not support polygamous groups. We do not support gay/lesbian groups.

We DO love those people as our own brothers and sisters, which they truly are. We are all sons and daughters of God, regardless what choices we make or teachings we follow. Some LDS members have a hard time distinguishing that difference, I agree. The difference, in an oft quoted nutshell, is "love the sinner, hate the sin."

Unfortunately, some don't practice that as clearly as they should, and many outside our faith look at our disdain for certain practices or teachings and interpret that as hatred towards the people practicing or teaching them.

anom | 10:44 p.m. June 26, 2008

Judging by the comments of the psuedo intellectuals, it becomes more obvious to me that the church has to produce a video, so that people won't get mixed up. The negative comments just reinforces the reasons why the church has to act.

from Michigan | 10:43 p.m. June 26, 2008

If the SLC-LDS are truly willing to differentiate themselves from the FLDS, they would remove the abominable sec.132 from their D&C.

Catie | 11:22 p.m. June 26, 2008

I notice it's all men posting on here. Don't we gals have a say in this matter? Perhaps women need to have their own posts so they can eliminate the mens voices on polygamy. This particular post is disturbing and disgusting! The LDS church better make things clear between the LDS moral church from that of the flds immoral's, or were all high tailing it out of here.

Re: Catie | 11:30 p.m. June 26, 2008

Now, now calm down. This is just a place where anyone can come and vent. No one except ourselves really reads it and by tonight, everything everyone says will be gone. We love to have other females come in and give their opinions too! Thanks for posting!

To Venom | 11:38 p.m. June 26, 2008

"Then, go sit in the temple and listen very closely..." Heard nothing but more changes to the endowment coming our way to filter out the old things that are of no value anymore. We are a progressive and changing religion that updates our practices and teachings with the changing times. The LDS church does not believe in Polygamy anymore. This is something you are going to have to try and accept. Section 132 is retained solely for the verses that have to do with eternal marriage; many of us would like to see the verses concerning polygamy (that directly contradict Jacob 2) weeded out of our scriptures sooner or later.

TimeToChangeOldMistakes | 11:48 p.m. June 26, 2008

Re; To Venom
WEEDED OUT IS CORRECT!

TO: PRESIDENT MONSON, please be the favorite prophet of the people at this time in the world and throw out the (Section 132) It was a mistake from the beginning, and men are smarter now. Old times and feeble narrow mindedness belong here no more.

Jen | 12:01 a.m. June 27, 2008

If you don't believe or not LDS you have no business here! There are other blogs that suite you better! Just go away and laeve and let those in this one and true church of Jesus Christ please read our news and rejoice on the accomplishments of Christs church without critisism or sarcasm. You are all little litle people to attach the church and have no remorse.

FDG | 12:16 a.m. June 27, 2008

I have read with great wonder at what some of you have had to say on this subject. Benjamin you are way off bas when you said that I could not get in the Temple if I showed kindness to any one who is practicing polygamy well I am guilty. I have several good friends that do and I can say in all honesty that if I needed any thing they would give me the shirt off their back. Do I like what they practice NO. But they are good people and good friends and I still have a recommend and attend the temple. Ben you dont know what you are talking about. My grandfather was a polygamst and out of it came a great posterity of lds people. AM I proud of this Yes, but it does not rule my life because its in the past and part of our history.

To Catie: | 12:34 a.m. June 27, 2008

I'm a girl and LDS, and I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of polygamy. I don't have any desire to change D&C 132, nor do I think it's something the church has abandoned completely. I think that when the Lord decides it's time to implement this practice again, the church will follow, and that's perfectly fine with me. It's nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed of. I already have a testimony of the practice, but if and when this is reinstated, then my husband and I will fast and pray to ensure that it's really coming from the Lord, and then we'll see what our personal circumstances end up being.

It isn't just men posting, and it isn't just men who aren't bothered by the idea. If it upsets you so badly that you're on here making these divisive comments and threatening to leave the church over it, I'd suggest studying more about the topic and praying for understanding and guidance. And in the meantime, please don't lump everybody in with your own personal feelings, because they are not universal. Good luck!

-Sarah

Paul in MD | 6:32 a.m. June 27, 2008

To TimeToChangeOldMistakes - Assuming you are LDS (I don't think anyone else would be asking President Monson to become the people's favorite), I think you need to read the scriptures a bit more. Please see 2 Nephi 9:28-29 "...When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. ..."

D&C 132 is revelation from God. You would have us toss it out because "men are smarter now." Read the above scripture completely, then ask yourself which side you are really on.

Paul in MD | 6:41 a.m. June 27, 2008

To ToVenom - We are a changing religion? Perhaps. But so is Christianity at large. It started with the Law of Moses. Christ's ministry fulfilled that law and provided a higher law in its place. The D&C is a collection of instructions and commandments intended to guide the church. It isn't complete, as the scriptures say the Lord teaches His people (everyone) line upon line, precept upon precept, as we progress and are capable of living higher laws.

But let's be clear on this point - the doctrines and policies of the LDS church change according to God's instruction through the prophets, not in reaction to changing times. You want references to plural marriage in D&C 132 weeded out. How about those chapters in the Old Testament regarding David and Solomon being commanded to practice the same thing? Shall we eradicate those?

This isn't something that is unique to our day. It has been practiced in Christianity for thousands of years, WHEN AND AS DIRECTED BY GOD. When God directs the faithful, they follow. When the people direct God, He leaves them on their own. Which are you?

Paul in MD | 7:05 a.m. June 27, 2008

There were a lot of posts here saying that it is a fact that the LDS church caved to the US government so Utah could become a state.

Read the Manifesto from 1890, also known as Official Declaration - 1, regarding this. It is available on the LDS Web site. It states quite clearly that President Woodruff was directed by God to issue the declaration halting plural marriage, and that if he had been commanded to continue the practice, he and the other leaders would gladly have endured persecution and prison to carry out the will of God. They'd been chased out of numerous towns and two temples before, they would have endured it again.

I realize those who don't believe we are directed by a prophet today won't believe this. No amount of arguing or logic is going to convince you otherwise. Have a nice day.

Two wrongs don't make a right | 8:49 a.m. June 27, 2008

I don't understand the mentality that there are other problems out there so we should just ignore polygamy! Polygamy is a problem just likke infidelity and so forth and needs addressed too. Stop trying to make excuses!

Read it All | 9:08 a.m. June 27, 2008

"...read the Old Testament. Youï¿½ll see polygamy was condoned by God..."

And what does the New Testament say about marriage?

Mary | 9:14 a.m. June 27, 2008

RE: TO CATIE 12:34 am
YOU are a man posing as a woman. I recognize you by what you say. Shame on you!

Weed it out? | 9:52 a.m. June 27, 2008

If you can weed out one scripture that was a mistake, what makes any of the other parts true? That's the problem with adding to the True Scriptures.

Mens scriptures | 10:24 a.m. June 27, 2008

Mormon scriptures? Something mighty fishy here.

realitycheck | 12:17 p.m. June 27, 2008

organized religion is futile if you don't follow basic morals of kindness and compassion for your fellow man. And many don't, even though they follow a strict doctrine of religion. So you all keep your faiths - but remember..

it's not how many times you pray, or go to church, or how many wives you have that will get you into heaven. It's how much you lied, cheated, and stole, and how many others you hurt, that will keep you out. Especially when you do it in the name of religion.

don't think heaven is an open door. it's not - and your sins may not all be forgiven regardless of your beliefs.

So I suggest everyone take a deep breath and consider how your actions affect others, and begin a path towards being GOOD people rather than rightous people. Rightousness won't get you far - goodness and compassion towards your fellow man (and especially children) will.

end of sermon.

dcc | 1:14 p.m. June 27, 2008

Without the LDS there would never have been a FLDS.

John Lambert | 1:29 p.m. June 27, 2008

To Catie,
I think a few of the poeple who have posted are members of the FLDS or some of polygamous group.
However in general I do not see people defending polygamy. The odd thing is you ask for the Church to distance itself from polygamy. What more can they do without being hateful?

John Lambert | 1:39 p.m. June 27, 2008

To Sarah,
I doubt that polygamy will be reinstituted during mortal life. I do not know though.
Also Jen, please refrain from asking people not to comment here. I know their comments are frustrating, but let them have their comments. Some of the negative comments help us better present the message.
One more thing, I think that some of the people who have engaged in blanket anti-Texas speech, and I even may be guilty of it, should back off. If I have said soemthing that offended a Texan I am sorry. I need to not ascribe to malice what can be explained by other means. Texas is full of many people who would accpet the truth if they were not kept from it by the craftiness of men. Hopefully some people will actually watch the videos and have their hearts touched.

L K M | 1:44 p.m. June 27, 2008

To John Lambert,
Well sir, I believe the LDS church needs to get some huge back bone and kick the living poop-poop out of some of these FLDS men, who claim relations to the LDS church. Makes me feel like dropping my membership to tell you the truth.

The FLDS deviates are harmful to LDS membership. No one wants to live some sick wacky polygamy life style, men nor women. Who needs religion to be immoral.

John Lambert | 2:06 p.m. June 27, 2008

To L K M,
So what, should the church set up a nice inquisition, gather up the accused, and when they are found guilty perform some "autos de fe" on them by burning them at the stake.
This is the United States of America. Religious groups are not allowed to enact physcial punishment on other people.

Meg | 2:29 p.m. June 27, 2008

Wow! that sounds like a good idea. Lets not burn them though, but perhaps castrate all sex molesters.

Nonetheless these FLDS are not making the church look good, and comparing the two religions is very wrong. I agree with LKM.

To Why all the fuss? 6:43 6/26 | 2:31 p.m. June 27, 2008

People are okay with other people having sex with whomever they choose. Once someone enters into a marriage, though, it should be different. We, as a society, don't tolerate affairs and infidelity (look at NYC's former mayor). Polygamy is wrong because you have bound yourself to one person. You have pledged yourself to ONE individual for eternity (or time, depending on your circumstance).

I am a heterosexual female, and I see far more honor in same-sex couples wanting to be united in marriage than for people to be living in polygamous marriages and having multiple sex partners.

I'm glad you're "very happy to live the law of chastity and only have one spouse!" Will you feel the same if your wife passes away and you decide to re-marry? In the LDS church, you'll then be committing polygamy...and you'll still be living the law of chastity.

John Lambert | 2:46 p.m. June 27, 2008

For the record, in case it was not obvious, I think the inquisition idea is the stupidest idea I have ever put forth.
I do support the church distinguishing itself from the FLDS, but I am glad that Elder Cook did it without calling for violaence. Elder Cook clearly stated we believe everyone has the right to practice their religion. This does not mean they can not be prosecuted for breaking laws, but it is hard to reconcile such a view with removing people from their home because of a belief system.
I am just glad I am not a judge, juror or child protection agent who has to work out all the issues involved. I hope they come up with the best solution, but I know that no matter what they do it will not please everyone. With the supreme court ruling the death penalty for child rape unconstitutional it is clear there are some people who will always feel Texas has not done enough, not that anyone who had even the slightest grasp of the law expected anyone at YFZ to get the death penalty.

realitycheck | 3:18 p.m. June 27, 2008

John Lambert -

The Supreme Court is beginning to realize that the death penalty is stupid and will soon ban it altogether - simply because it costs A LOT more money to defend against appeals than it does to simply lock someone away, and it takes away all the years that the crimes can haunt their nightmares and eat away at their soul.

Life without parole is much worse than the death penalty. and cheaper. hey - win,win.

John Lambert | 3:31 p.m. June 27, 2008

To why all the fuss,
You are only committing plygamy if you are simultaneosly living with more than one spouse. It does not matter whether your spose dies or you get divorced, you are not committing polygamy if you remarry.
If you are a woman, and you are sealed to your first husband, and he dies and then you go and marry another man arn't you married to two men at once? Are you guilty of polyandry? No. However you are just as much married to two men as any man whose first wife died and has now remarried is. The fact of the matter is that the church will excommunicate someone if they try to claim to have two living spouses.
Yes as I have said elsewhere there are other differences between the LDS Church and the FLDS Church. However, the problem is so many people think that the FLDS are just a "sex cult" that in most people minds there is nothing else to be different than the FLDS church in.

Roger | 3:37 p.m. June 27, 2008

you can dress the pig up with a touch of lip stick but it is still a pig.

John Lambert | 3:42 p.m. June 27, 2008

To realitycheck,
You may be right in what you say on the death penalty. That does not keep it from being advocated in the case of some crimes or people from being mad when it does not apply.
My point was, there are some people who to see some FLDS executed and will not be happy if it does not happen. On the other side there are some who want marriage by any female over the age of 12 to be made legal to any man no matter how old his is or how many other wives he has and they will not be satisfied unless it happens. There are not many people in these extremes, but there are lots of people who either feel the YFZ ranch should be closed down and all the adult males should be sent to prison or that Texas should have to pay huge fines for removing the children. Most of the people in these more moderate positions are also so convinced of them that they cannot be appeased either.

Sarah | 3:51 p.m. June 27, 2008

Sorry Mary, but I'm very much a female. You're welcome to drop by my house and check for yourself, if you'd like.

Rather than demanding the church change its policies, history, revelations and scriptures to suit your whims, perhaps you should try changing yourself first.

There are many LDS women who are not bothered at all by the idea of polygamy, IF it comes from the Lord. This is a policy that, throughout all of time, has gone in and out of practice. Right now, it's out of practice. It may or may not come back into practice, we don't know. Only the Lord has any idea if that's the case. Until then, perhaps we should leave our scriptures intact.

The LDS Threat | 4:56 p.m. June 27, 2008

The biggest threat to the LDS church is from within. Many of you have proven that here today

Hey Roger | 5:06 p.m. June 27, 2008

Boy! do I ever agree with you on the pig theory. There are just a few of them posting on here and hope the church catches and excommunicates them for their perversions.

And TO- Sarah! I don't believe you anymore then does Mary. You are a HOAXER! Go join the FLDS if you don't want to follow LDS rules.

DEAN J.

Cathy | 5:14 p.m. June 27, 2008

RE: Sarah---YOU ARE A FRAUD! And probably from the FLDS church. I am a 7 generation Mormon and I know thousands of woman in the LDS church, and I have never ever heard one single woman condone polygamy. Are you on drugs or what?
Most women I know say they would leave their husbands if they pulled such a stunt. SO GET REAL!!! However, you could be a very sick FLDS guy just play the with everyones mind like most typical FLDS men do on here.

Sarah | 6:12 p.m. June 27, 2008

To Cathy, Caitie, Mary and Dean:

I am LDS, female, born and raised in the church. My family members were some of the first to join the church, and one of them is mentioned several times in the D&C (Seymour Brunson). Joseph Smith even officiated his funeral, and first introduced the idea of baptisms for the dead on that occasion. I'm more than happy to prove who I am, if you can think of a way to do so.

Yes, I too know women who are bothered by polygamy, but I also know quite a few who are not. I highly doubt that you personally know thousands of LDS women and their exact thoughts on polygamy. I would also leave my husband if he pulled this during a time when the Lord didn't condone it, and I have big problems with the way the FLDS church practices the policy today.

But I also have a strong testimony that this was put into place by divine revelation, and after some deep soul-searching and praying, I've come to realize that there IS a time and a place for it.

I also don't condone changing our holy scriptures because you disagree with them.

I am shocked | 6:15 p.m. June 27, 2008

I do not believe some of the shocking comments being posted here. Individuals advocating the removal of Section 132 from the D&C. and some of this coming from Church members. Are you serious? Maybe those who believe this should read D&C 112:23-26 and take inventory of themselves.

Tammy | 6:25 p.m. June 27, 2008

re: Sarah--Well Good for you! I hope your husband gets many beautiful wives when the time comes to bless him. And that he has thousands of children with them. Can I marry him? I am beautiful with no husband and I am strong LDS.

James LA | 6:32 p.m. June 27, 2008

Why I never,
What on earth is wrong with you fLDS and LDS people?? Don't you people teach any morals to your members?

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.