Reader comments
Pro-polygamy coalition takes issue with LDS objection to 'fundamentalist'
210 comments | Read story
Jobu | 3:13 p.m. July 9, 2008
I hope everyone here appreciated the irony.
LDS say evangelicals don't have the right to determine who is Christian and who isn't, but LDS claim the right to say who is Mormon and who isn't. Let's follow the parallels.
LDS: We are Christian because we believe in Jesus Christ
Evangelical: You are not Christian because your conecpt of Jesus is not biblical. WE get to say who is Christian, not you.
FLDS: We are Mormon because we believe in Joseph Smith.
LDS: You are not Mormon because you don't believe in Thomas S. Monson. WE get to say who is Mormon, not you.
LDS say evangelicals don't have the right to determine who is Christian and who isn't, but LDS claim the right to say who is Mormon and who isn't. Let's follow the parallels.
LDS: We are Christian because we believe in Jesus Christ
Evangelical: You are not Christian because your conecpt of Jesus is not biblical. WE get to say who is Christian, not you.
FLDS: We are Mormon because we believe in Joseph Smith.
LDS: You are not Mormon because you don't believe in Thomas S. Monson. WE get to say who is Mormon, not you.
How about this | 3:21 p.m. July 9, 2008
I think Utah's constitution could be amended to outlaw the term
"fundamentalist" as a way of describing/naming a church. This would
solve the problem. Can someone please contract Representative Chris Butters
about this?
Comments continue below
Jacob | 3:24 p.m. July 9, 2008
Isn't the teaching of polygamy still in the Mormon texts? I am pretty sure
that either the Doctrin and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price still teaches
that a man must have numerous wives in order to reach the highest (Celestial)
kingdom of heaven.
To Uncannygunman | 3:27 p.m. July 9, 2008
You hit the nail on the head! "And frankly, they're all Mormons to
me." You showed why there should be efforts to show the differances
between the two groups. If those efforts are not made then ignorant people will
not understand that there is a chasm of differences. If a small group of people
who do something illegal taint your reputation then you should go out of your
way to express the differences between you and that illegal group. I have a guy
out there with my same exact name that has incredably crappy credit and it erks
me to no end when he screws up my financial name. You get the point.
Russ | 3:33 p.m. July 9, 2008
The term Mormon in the media is understood to mean the LDS Church and it is a
term that has a particular meaning. This would be like me naming a software
company I create as Microsoft Reboot. I cannot use the term Microsoft without
violating laws. Yes they can call themselves what they want but that does not
allow them to twist the public into thinking they are the Mormon church. The
media seems to be the ones making the mistake and they should clarify the issue.
It should not be the resposibility of the LDS church to have to correct them all
of the time. You seem to miss the point in the article that clarifies the
difference between polygamy in the past compared to now. The FLDS are violating
the law of the land and should be dissolved as an organized church because of
this.
Anonymous | 3:32 p.m. July 9, 2008
Jobu, please read Elder Cook's statement again.
uncannygunman, please don't shoot me.
uncannygunman, please don't shoot me.
Reply to Jacob | 3:38 p.m. July 9, 2008
You don't know what you're talking about. It says nothing of the sort
in the books you mentioned.
winterman93 | 3:42 p.m. July 9, 2008
Jacob, the official document#1 amends and therefore overrides the scriptures
pertaining to polygamous marriages in D&C 132:61.
We are an ever changing faith whose teachings are based upon modern day revelation and if the Prophet receives a revelation like he did regarding polygamy, then the official document overrides what was previously placed...it amends it rather to keep the teaching as current as possible...that is what should be expected from a Church whose leaders receive revelation continually, that there will be changes from time to time.
while our foundation is in solid scripture such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon, we are willingly ready to receive any new teaching we may need from General Conference talks and the like..
We are an ever changing faith whose teachings are based upon modern day revelation and if the Prophet receives a revelation like he did regarding polygamy, then the official document overrides what was previously placed...it amends it rather to keep the teaching as current as possible...that is what should be expected from a Church whose leaders receive revelation continually, that there will be changes from time to time.
while our foundation is in solid scripture such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon, we are willingly ready to receive any new teaching we may need from General Conference talks and the like..
Richly ironic.... | 3:39 p.m. July 9, 2008
As was pointed out, this issue is richly ironic! The Mormons (and I am one) do
not like other people using the term Mormon. They want to be called members of
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", yet someone else
wants to commonder the term then they care! It is just like the Still
Born/Mormon tiff on who is a "Christian"!
BTW, Mormon polygamy (ie, LDS polygamy) WAS in many ways like the polygamy the fundamentalists practice. JS did marry a 14 year old. BY married to teenage sisters (when he was 46!). Many men had more than two wives (my g-g-grandfather had 4). Women could "leave/divorce" but how realistic was it to do that in 19th century Utah? They would get no child support or spousal support (likely). They would be without a man in a barren wilderness, 700 miles from civilization.
BTW, Mormon polygamy (ie, LDS polygamy) WAS in many ways like the polygamy the fundamentalists practice. JS did marry a 14 year old. BY married to teenage sisters (when he was 46!). Many men had more than two wives (my g-g-grandfather had 4). Women could "leave/divorce" but how realistic was it to do that in 19th century Utah? They would get no child support or spousal support (likely). They would be without a man in a barren wilderness, 700 miles from civilization.
OregonUte | 3:42 p.m. July 9, 2008
Jacob, neither The Doctrine and Covenants nor the Pearl of Great Price say that
a man MUST have numerous wives in order to reach the highest degree in the
celestial kingdom.
Reply to "Reply to Jacob" | 3:50 p.m. July 9, 2008
Read D&C 132 brother. Jacob is absolutely right. I would bet most mormons
don't realize that Joseph Smith had 32 wives and Emma almost never had
contact with the other wives. On top of that he was "spiritually"
married to other mens wives. After Joseph was murdered Emma left the LDS church
and joined the reorganized church primarily because she disagreed with Brigham
Youngs promoting of polygamy. The bottom line and I'm not defending the
FLDS by any means, but they are probably closer to the original mormons than
today's LDS are by far.
justathought | 4:06 p.m. July 9, 2008
As far as I understand a man can be sealed to more than one woman if his first
wife is deceased and his new wife is not sealed to another man.
Utah County Mormon | 4:12 p.m. July 9, 2008
I agree with the first post from jobu. As an active mainstream LDS person, I
always found it strange, and quite frankly wrong, that we attempt to tell other
groups what they can, and cannot call themselves. We persistently claim that
protestant churches have no right to say we are not Christians, but then we
claim that Mormon Fundamentalists can't use the term "Mormon." I
think speaking out was the right thing for the Mormon Fundamentalists.
foodforthought | 4:22 p.m. July 9, 2008
Bottom line, polygamy is a black eye for the mormon church. You can dance
around it all day, but D&C 132 is a cover for an adulterous lifestyle.
Serously read it and be objective. To summarize, you Joseph can be with as many
women as you want as long as you are "sealed" to them and Emma you
must obey and be with only Joseph or you will be destroyed. What a farce. It
even proves the point more that Joseph had to have his brother Hyrum present
this to Emma because he feared her reaction.
Anonymous | 4:30 p.m. July 9, 2008
For whatever reason the LDS Church still grapples with an identity crisis (not
an internal one, just an external one). If I had a distant cousin with a
similar name who was in trouble with the law I would want the world to know that
it wasn't me involved in the trouble.
To: winterman93 | 4:35 p.m. July 9, 2008
I'm troubled by a few of your statement. First, I'm not sure that a
"declaration" can override a "revelation." Sincere students
of Mormon history are aware of the fact that O.D. 1 was not considered a
revelation, but a declaration for "the Territory" (i.e. Utah). Hence
the reason men and women were sent to Mexico to enter into plural marriage until
at least 1914.
Secondly, you said that, "We are an ever changing faith..." Gordon B. Hinckley gave several conference talks about how we are are NOT a changing faith. A quick search of the Church website will demonstrate this.
Lastly, you stated, "while our foundation is in solid scripture such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon, we are willingly ready to receive any new teaching we may need from General Conference talks and the like.." It sounds like you are saying that the D&C and PoGP are not "solid scripture," which if this is the case, then all new revelations and teachings would not be "solid scripture" either. You'd be better off in the Temple Lot Church who only accept the Bible and BoM as actual scripture.
Secondly, you said that, "We are an ever changing faith..." Gordon B. Hinckley gave several conference talks about how we are are NOT a changing faith. A quick search of the Church website will demonstrate this.
Lastly, you stated, "while our foundation is in solid scripture such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon, we are willingly ready to receive any new teaching we may need from General Conference talks and the like.." It sounds like you are saying that the D&C and PoGP are not "solid scripture," which if this is the case, then all new revelations and teachings would not be "solid scripture" either. You'd be better off in the Temple Lot Church who only accept the Bible and BoM as actual scripture.
Irony? | 4:36 p.m. July 9, 2008
There's only irony if that's what YOU WANT TO SEE. Just convincing
yourself something is really there, when it isn't. Don't believe
everything you think guys.
Pure Truth | 4:36 p.m. July 9, 2008
The LDS doesn't say anything about rights. They may talk about improper and
proper things or actions. But from a philosophical standpoint the LDS church is
very neutral in not interfering with other beliefs but only promoting what it
believes to be good.
The only time the LDS church steps in is in defense(WHICH THIS IS CLEARLY DOING BY DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN FLDS AND LDS) and when someone else needs defending.
How can people complain and defend the FLDS who FORCED children and women to stay in the ranch. Denying ones ability to choose for ones self is the ANTI-Christ of LDS beliefs on freedom and the basic rights of being a human being as the constitution itself refers to.
I am about as non 'standard Republican Utah LDS' as it gets in that I am open to any suggestion but as many people who are ignorant of alternative views can be one sided...those that fight for 'any other side' just because they are undefended usually do not realize that they can be just as wrong.
The LDS have every right to disagree and not be harassed about it. Tolerant doesn't mean we have to agree...just accept human rights and freedom!
The only time the LDS church steps in is in defense(WHICH THIS IS CLEARLY DOING BY DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN FLDS AND LDS) and when someone else needs defending.
How can people complain and defend the FLDS who FORCED children and women to stay in the ranch. Denying ones ability to choose for ones self is the ANTI-Christ of LDS beliefs on freedom and the basic rights of being a human being as the constitution itself refers to.
I am about as non 'standard Republican Utah LDS' as it gets in that I am open to any suggestion but as many people who are ignorant of alternative views can be one sided...those that fight for 'any other side' just because they are undefended usually do not realize that they can be just as wrong.
The LDS have every right to disagree and not be harassed about it. Tolerant doesn't mean we have to agree...just accept human rights and freedom!
re Winterman | 4:39 p.m. July 9, 2008
Ah, yes, Revelation--How conveeeeeeenient!
wyomormon | 4:37 p.m. July 9, 2008
Did some of you really even read the article. Elder Cook in no way trys to tell
anybody that they can't call themselves mormons. People can call
themselves what they want. The point he and the Church are trying to make are
the distinctions between our church and theirs. The church would never try to
tell someone what they can call themselves. I think people take offense way too
easy. The church was in no way trying to discriminate against the
fundamentalists, just point out the differences and I believe this group of
fundamentalists took it the wrong way. It's people that jump to conclusions
without doing any homework on what was said that irritates me the most about
these message boards.
dave4197 | 4:43 p.m. July 9, 2008
Clearly, the "fundamentalist lds" have no legal "right" to
call themselves the LDS Church or Mormons or "what they want", at
least not on any official papers. Most mainstream media abides by the LDS
church's wish to separate the 2 groups in media reporting. Out in the back
ally, they can call themselves what they want. Incorporation, which was legally
required way back when, and still is, allows a group to name itself. Others
cannot use the name just because. They have to come up with a distinct name.
FLDS, learn to live within the law! there's plenty of room.
Wuh?!? | 4:45 p.m. July 9, 2008
To Justathought:
You are correct! A man can be sealed to more than one wife in the afterlife. So polygamy is an abominable practice in this life, but they're A-OK with it in the afterlife. Go figure.
You are correct! A man can be sealed to more than one wife in the afterlife. So polygamy is an abominable practice in this life, but they're A-OK with it in the afterlife. Go figure.
TO: Reply to "Reply to Jacob" | 4:50 p.m. July 9, 2008
Emma didn't just up and join the RLDS. It wasn't even created until
the mid 1860's. Joseph was murdered in 1844. Thats 20 years or so.
Sarah | 4:56 p.m. July 9, 2008
With all the constant coments from people all over the country for the LDS
church to "go to Texas and clean up the mess", do you blame them for
clarifying that the two religions are not the same? They didn't say the
FLDS couldn't call themselves Mormon, they said "Please recognize that
our churches split more than 100 years ago and are not related today."
LB | 5:05 p.m. July 9, 2008
Utah County Mormon, your argument is seriously flawed because the term
"Christian" is a general term referring to a belief in Jesus Christ,
while the terms "Mormon" or "Methodist" are names of
particular Christian religions. Not unlike the way the term "cola"
refers to a flavor of soft drink while "Coke" and "Pepsi"
are names of particular brands of cola. Both Coke and Pepsi can use the term
cola. However, an organization or business cannot just add a word and start
using the NAME of another organization or business, as has been mentioned. The
LDS church used the name long, long before the polygamous group began to use it.
Perhaps the LDS church should have tried to stop the use of the name before now,
but they are certainly entitled to bring it up now. I would hope they take legal
action if possible.
a respector of the faith | 5:06 p.m. July 9, 2008
I am not a memeber of the lds faith but as I see it they are going to get it
from critics of their faith either way. if they distance themselves like they
did, you have the people that have nothing better to do then to bring down a
faith of another which by the way does a lot of good things for communities
around the world regardless of the faith. If they were to support the the flds
faith once again they would deal with critics with nothing better to do. I wish
people would focus on there on faith and building it rather then tearing down
another. The basis of all religion is love and respect how about people show
some. religions have the right to define their own beliefs. If you are not a
part of that religion to not try to define anothers beliefs
Verl Doman | 5:07 p.m. July 9, 2008
Come on now.
The Church wants is to clarify to the press and others that the mainstream LDS Church has no connection with the FLDS because it is simple fact and because of the affects the negative press has on one of the main functions of the LDS Church to fulfill this Biblical prophecy: "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Matthew 24:14)
Sooo--
1 JUDGE not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
(Matthew 7:1 - 5)
The Church wants is to clarify to the press and others that the mainstream LDS Church has no connection with the FLDS because it is simple fact and because of the affects the negative press has on one of the main functions of the LDS Church to fulfill this Biblical prophecy: "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Matthew 24:14)
Sooo--
1 JUDGE not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
(Matthew 7:1 - 5)
To wyomormon | 5:11 p.m. July 9, 2008
You wrote that the "Church would never try to tell someone what they can
call themselves." Unfortunately, that statement is incorrect. If you
search the official Church News website (I don't think we are allowed to
post links), and type in "Mormon Fundamentalist" in the search box,
you will find this statement:
"When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, terms such as those given in the first paragraph above are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after (Joseph) Smith's death."
Gordon B. Hinckley stated in the same article, 'There is no such thing as a "Mormon Fundamentalist." It is a contradiction to use the two words together.'" Of course, many of the various Book of Mormon believing groups refer to themselves as "Mormon Fundamentalists."
So the Church may not be telling people what they "can" call themselves, they are definitely telling them what they "can't" call themselves.
"When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, terms such as those given in the first paragraph above are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after (Joseph) Smith's death."
Gordon B. Hinckley stated in the same article, 'There is no such thing as a "Mormon Fundamentalist." It is a contradiction to use the two words together.'" Of course, many of the various Book of Mormon believing groups refer to themselves as "Mormon Fundamentalists."
So the Church may not be telling people what they "can" call themselves, they are definitely telling them what they "can't" call themselves.
Anonymous | 5:19 p.m. July 9, 2008
by the way cook never said the cant call themselves flds read carefully
people
To LB | 5:29 p.m. July 9, 2008
The flaw in your argument is assuming that "Mormon" is an incorporated
word or phrase by the LDS church. It is not. "The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints" is the incorporated phrase, referring to the LDS
legal entity. The term "Mormon" in the last 100 years as become a
"generic" term that is used by many Book of Mormon believers outside
of the LDS faith. The word "Mormon" is not the legal name of the
Church, so the analogy of corporations does not work here.
There is a church called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," without the hyphen between the words "latter" and "day." They are an incorporated entity in New Mexico and Wisconsin. They refer to themselves as "Midwest" and "Great Lakes Mormons," where they originated after Joseph Smith's death. Should we tell them there is no such thing as a "Great Lakes Mormon" even though they've been around since 1844?
The Methodist church could not sue someone who was not Methodist for referring to themselves as a Methodist.
There is a church called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," without the hyphen between the words "latter" and "day." They are an incorporated entity in New Mexico and Wisconsin. They refer to themselves as "Midwest" and "Great Lakes Mormons," where they originated after Joseph Smith's death. Should we tell them there is no such thing as a "Great Lakes Mormon" even though they've been around since 1844?
The Methodist church could not sue someone who was not Methodist for referring to themselves as a Methodist.
Common Sense | 5:33 p.m. July 9, 2008
If you own a fast food restaurant called "The Original
McDonald's" that serves a menu with Big Macs and Quarter Pounders and
are suddenly thrust into the media limelight because of an E. Coli outbreak in
your hamburger, McDonald's can (and should) obtain a court order forcing
you to cease infringing on the name that they own -- even if you've been
doing it since 1930.
The term "Mormon" has become a synonym for the LDS Church and its members and it therefore belongs to the LDS Church. The Church should seek legal enforcement of its right to control what it owns.
The IOC has successfully asserted that it owns the term "Olympic" and has legally established its right to decide where and how it is used.
The LDS Church should do the same.
This case is so obvious an Obama supporter can recognize it -- well, almost recognize it.
You anti-LDS Church people posting comments to the contrary are not doing your cause any favors. By not supporting the LDS Church in asserting it's clearly apparent rights, you are proving that you are simply angry LDS Church haters.
The term "Mormon" has become a synonym for the LDS Church and its members and it therefore belongs to the LDS Church. The Church should seek legal enforcement of its right to control what it owns.
The IOC has successfully asserted that it owns the term "Olympic" and has legally established its right to decide where and how it is used.
The LDS Church should do the same.
This case is so obvious an Obama supporter can recognize it -- well, almost recognize it.
You anti-LDS Church people posting comments to the contrary are not doing your cause any favors. By not supporting the LDS Church in asserting it's clearly apparent rights, you are proving that you are simply angry LDS Church haters.
More Wives Please | 5:36 p.m. July 9, 2008
The term "Mormon" is now the same as the term "Christian"
and the LDS need to accept this fact.
Wilford's manifesto was not a revelation to stop plural marrage. It was a statement so that Utah could become a state and that the Feds would not shut down the LDS church.
LDS members need to read their scripture before spouting off!
Wilford's manifesto was not a revelation to stop plural marrage. It was a statement so that Utah could become a state and that the Feds would not shut down the LDS church.
LDS members need to read their scripture before spouting off!
Not a RESPECTER! | 5:40 p.m. July 9, 2008
Why don't you polygamist all get a moral life?
Black eye pea | 5:43 p.m. July 9, 2008
Not at any time in history has the LDS church act out of order with its
principles and doctrines hence the church believe in continual revelation those
individuals who fall away from the church fails to see this to their own
damnation(natural man) individual/groups take it upon themselves to think that
they know the will of god.
So you can either.."drink and be merry for tommorow we die" or humble yourself to the dust and repent.
So you can either.."drink and be merry for tommorow we die" or humble yourself to the dust and repent.
To Russ: | 5:48 p.m. July 9, 2008
You can't call your company Microsoft Reboot because Microsoft is a
trademarked name. The LDS application for a trademark on the term
"Mormon" was rejected in 2007 by the US Patent and Trademark Office
because it is too generic (ie used by too many other groups.) It is trademarked
in some other countries. The LDS church can and does ask the media to make a
distinction, which the media should be doing anyway so as part of informing the
public.
concern | 5:48 p.m. July 9, 2008
poligamy is certainly has no place in this modern century.lds is right in ending
the practice of poligamy.i see that flds regards women as cheap things and i
cant believe they are willing to accept that practice until now.JOSEPH certainly
is no angel,he is not suitable to be a prophet either.he claimed its God commend
to practice poligamy while his actual motif is lust and to multiply its
members.the weakest part of lds members is they dont dare to speak up.they even
cant think for themselves what is right or wrong.they just swallow what the
leader claim to be GOD's commemn.how on earth that only their church could
produce living prophets.while i see lds church want to be potray as
christian,they certainly not really suitable to be called one.the one and first
thing the missionaries would ask is do you believe that Joseph Smith is a
prophet? they should ask first thing about JESUS if they claim they put and
believe JESUS above everything.i just hope the lds members would wake up from
the long dream design by the founder and its leaders.its not shameful to admit
that their founder once mislead them .they should tell the truth.
Mormon Umbrella | 5:51 p.m. July 9, 2008
The LDS Church has no right to declare who is and who is not a
"Mormon". The term "Mormon" is similar to Christian in that
it encompasses many groups/churches who embrace Joseph Smith as a prophet and
the Book of Mormon as scripture, the LDS Church being perhaps the largest one.
What religion? | 5:53 p.m. July 9, 2008
Wow! looks like a lot problems over the name of two religions and too many
wives. None of this looks to spiritual, religious or too godly... What a joke! A
lot of contention in the name of religion, and we all know contention comes from
the devil.
Mormon for all | 6:01 p.m. July 9, 2008
Because someone disagrees with the LDS Church's position on the word
"mormon," does not make them "LDS Church haters." Why if
someone disagrees with an LDS policy or position, do some of the members
immediately classify them as "anti-Mormon" or "LDS Church
haters?" It's like those who play the race card in politics; in this
case, playing the "anti-mormon card."
The term Mormon is not a synonym for the LDS Church. Perhaps those who are born in raised in Utah think so, but to many outside of the area, it means people who believe in the Book of Mormon, weather they be LDS, RLDS (CoC), Temple Lot, Strangite, etc.
The term Mormon is not a synonym for the LDS Church. Perhaps those who are born in raised in Utah think so, but to many outside of the area, it means people who believe in the Book of Mormon, weather they be LDS, RLDS (CoC), Temple Lot, Strangite, etc.
Anonymous | 6:12 p.m. July 9, 2008
The real issue is being overlooked- all the LDS Church is asking is to have a
clear cut difference from the FLDS. If the term Mormon is used by the press when
talking about the FLDS the world is going to think first the LDS. Mormon is a
nickname. Just like Catholic. Catholic's are christians. Mormons are
christians. But groups splinted from the Catholics and became Evanglists or
whatever, they have thier own nickname to distingish themselves. But they are
still all christians. Is is not wrong for the LDS Church to ask that Mormon is
the term for the LDS, not the FLDS. They where first, they where called that
first. The splinter groups should have thier own name to call upon. Mormon is
not the only prophet named in the Book of Mormon.
russ2 | 6:15 p.m. July 9, 2008
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the irony is delicious. Reminds me
of my children when they argue:
did too, did not, did too, did not...
delicious.
did too, did not, did too, did not...
delicious.
Much ignorance.. | 6:13 p.m. July 9, 2008
is displayed here. Much Indeed!!!!!! Many of you are totally uninformed and make
your comments bent on your likes and dislikes, your true prejudices, and your
total ignorance of fact. A Polygamist can be a very good person, like Abraham,
Isaac, or Jacob or someone living today. Sex maniacs and transgressors are
usually unmarried, or, not polygamous. Like some of you who post here. There are
millions of good people who practice polygamy in the world. It depands on how
one lives and serves. There are also millions of monogamous and "live in
types" who are total creeps, like some who post here. Get with it folks,
follow your best judgment. Pray and as for me, I will follow the true and living
Prophet as I see fit and let no man judge me as I do so. LDS people do not
practice polygamy because it is against civil law, not because it is necessarily
wrong. The God of Abraham changes not. He is the same yesterday, today, and
forever.
Anonymous | 6:30 p.m. July 9, 2008
most of you guys are very dumb to your own history
Krudd | 6:41 p.m. July 9, 2008
Why do Anti LDS people read the Des News? I just don't get that
just a thought on polgomy | 6:48 p.m. July 9, 2008
The law of the land doesn't reconize said marriages, so they are just
sleeping around. The only difference is they make promised to each other as if
they are a family. But those people that just sleep around with anyone they go
on a date with, aren't. And yet as a society we are upset with the
polgyomist and yet let those people do as they will? Fornifacation and adultry
are against the law too.
Bruce | 6:54 p.m. July 9, 2008
The church wants to accuse every fundamentalist mormon group of being FLDS.
Thousands, like the A.U.B., dress in modern clothes and put a premium on
education and freedom of choice in relationships. They are NOT FLDS but they
most certainly ARE mormon.
It should be these good people who are trying to live the original gospel who should be upset.
The mainstream (mormon lite) church is hardly the church that was originally established during this dispensation.
Maybe the mainstream church should concern themselves with helping others a little more instead of fitting into secular society.
Joesph Smith and Brigham Young both warned the church about when it starts to "fit in". Oh, well...they don't do much else that those two advocated anyway.
It should be these good people who are trying to live the original gospel who should be upset.
The mainstream (mormon lite) church is hardly the church that was originally established during this dispensation.
Maybe the mainstream church should concern themselves with helping others a little more instead of fitting into secular society.
Joesph Smith and Brigham Young both warned the church about when it starts to "fit in". Oh, well...they don't do much else that those two advocated anyway.
Can't we all just get along? | 6:59 p.m. July 9, 2008
Misconceptions happen and need to be clarified. When LDS bishops are being
asked to listen to the prayers of FLDS mothers to make sure they aren't
trying to send any "hidden messages" to their childern it's like
asking a Baptist to listen to mass to make sure it is being said correctly.
Ignorance may be bliss but it also makes you Deaf, Dumb, & Blind.
Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Calie | 7:01 p.m. July 9, 2008
To FLDS, go preach your immoral behavior to someone who wants to be a
polygamist. And quit blaming God for your desiring of many wives. It
doesn't take too much common sense to figure you people out. And PLEASE
don't use the bible as a reference, because most of it is wrong too and has
been changed throughout the ages to benefit certain men.
Charles | 7:08 p.m. July 9, 2008
(Sigh...)
The "orthodox" LDS Church decries the use of the term "Mormon" by anyone else but them because they see themselves as being the only true, correct, and justified outgrowth of the organization that Joseph Smith founded, Brigham Young presided over, etc.
Has it occurred to any of these LDS faithful that this is precisely the way that the so-called "fundamentalist Mormon" groups also see themselves -- as the legitimate successors of Joseph Smith's restored gospel? Every fundamentalist Mormon I know (and I know plenty of them!) regards the "orthodox" LDS Church to be in a fallen state of apostacy, having forfeited its authority due to accommodation to the world, and lacking entitlement to the legacy of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
One sociologist reported that the LDS Church and its fundamentalist cousins share "95% identical doctrine and 75% identical practices". The difference between the two isn't about divergent doctrine; it is about acceptance or rejection of the presently constituted orthodox LDS authorities.
The "orthodox" LDS Church decries the use of the term "Mormon" by anyone else but them because they see themselves as being the only true, correct, and justified outgrowth of the organization that Joseph Smith founded, Brigham Young presided over, etc.
Has it occurred to any of these LDS faithful that this is precisely the way that the so-called "fundamentalist Mormon" groups also see themselves -- as the legitimate successors of Joseph Smith's restored gospel? Every fundamentalist Mormon I know (and I know plenty of them!) regards the "orthodox" LDS Church to be in a fallen state of apostacy, having forfeited its authority due to accommodation to the world, and lacking entitlement to the legacy of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
One sociologist reported that the LDS Church and its fundamentalist cousins share "95% identical doctrine and 75% identical practices". The difference between the two isn't about divergent doctrine; it is about acceptance or rejection of the presently constituted orthodox LDS authorities.
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.
Related content
- Rock on 9:00 p.m.
- Lobo land like home for BYU lineman 8:57 p.m.
- 3A soccer all-state first team 8:56 p.m.
- U. hopes to keep clicking 8:28 p.m.
- Steelers lead Broncos at halftime 8:13 p.m.
- Jazz win in N.Y. for 1st time since '04 8:02 p.m.
- Suns outlast 76ers, 119-115 7:51 p.m.
- Quilt auction aims to benefit lives 7:44 p.m.
- Eating fruit not a cause of weight gain 7:44 p.m.
- Wife and friend are too close 7:44 p.m.
- TCU showdown has big implications
- Seniors helped BYU regroup
- Lambert surprisingly tops news
- Hope for single moms
- Bystanders framed for child porn
- Korver and Miles to be evaluated
- Prep girls soccer MVPs named
- Utah Jazz Extra: Whose hot/not
- GOP blasts Matheson after vote
- Newhouse Hotel, an explosive end
- Gay advocates trek to LDS office
269 - House passes health care bill225
- Lobo suspended180
- TCU showdown has big implications177
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys154
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd112
- Thousands protest health bill111
- RSL rallies to advance103
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy94
Meghan McCain, the daughter of former presidential candidate John...
Why do so many people live so close to refineries in Utah and elsewhere?
Advertisement
Latest comments
Ask any defense attorney or judge. Any first time offender who turns himself...
The power of these substances stuns me, because Scott is one of the finest...
He has a great show and good information. It's good to hear from some media...
So much said.... BUT, I REMEMBER watching this on TV!! I remember...
Hard to excuse another big lead lost against a lousy team, but in the end, a...
I'm republican, and all I can say is good job Matheson! I respect him.
The suggestion of a double standard is based on pure ignorance. I personally...
In the days before pepper spray and tazers, Cardall would have been...
As a band we realize this is a burden to the community but becuase our show...
Barely won the game. blew a 17 pt lead. Totally ridiculous why this team...
Advertisements
And frankly, they're all Mormons to me.