Reader comments
Pro-polygamy coalition takes issue with LDS objection to 'fundamentalist'

I'm confused--I thought the mainstream LDS church no longer wished to be referred to as the Mormon church. But now nobody else can use that name either? Good for the fundamentalist Mormons, sticking up for their right to call themselves what they please. The "real" Mormon church can do whatever distinguishing needs doing without trying to claim control over the English language.

And frankly, they're all Mormons to me.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Jobu, please read Elder Cook's statement again.

uncannygunman, please don't shoot me.

You don't know what you're talking about. It says nothing of the sort in the books you mentioned.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Ah, yes, Revelation--How conveeeeeeenient!