Comments about ‘Imprisoned Warren Jeffs imposes change on polygamous sect’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Jan. 15 2012 10:58 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
one old man
Ogden, UT

Totally insane.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I'm not sure how much more insane the edicts of warren jeffs have to become before we have to admit that there is a danger in giving out the free passes to anyone who calls their idea a religion. Jeffs seems bent on finding out, however, and this fiasco continues unchecked by law enforcement, as he tightens his grip on money, power and sex. I fear that, if we don't deal with these prison camps on the border something very bad will happen there, if it hasn't already.

MoJules
Florissant, MO

Just think, our country could be doing the same kinds of things with us in a few years. They too want to take away our money and our freedom and they one day would want to stop childbearing like China.

Dan Maloy
Enid, OK

2 things:

1st, article quote: "The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abandoned the practice in 1890 as a condition of Utah's statehood". Absolutely false.

The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did NOT stop practicing polygamy because we wanted our territory to become a state/member of the United States of America. We stopped practicing polygamy because Jesus Christ, through his authorized servant and prophet, Wilford Woodruff, told us to do so. Anyone who claims otherwise needs to go read the excerpts from several sermons from Pres. Woodruff that are contained in the Doctrine and Covenants that go along with what is called "Official Declaration 1".

Christ's prophets do not do what is "popular", they do what the Lord tells them to do. Period.

2nd, if Jeffs really does try to impose his idea of no sexual relations in the FLDS church, even between legally married husbands and wives, just watch that church fall apart. The destruction will NOT be pretty and will not take long to begin.

JoeBlow
Miami Area, Fl

Ok Dan,

Regarding polygamy and the priesthood for blacks, lets just say that God's timing is impeccable.

And the outside "pressure" in both instances had Nothing to do with it.

Must just be coincidence.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Dear Joe Blow:

I believe the Lord took the burden of polygamy away for three basic reasons: 1. The practice was being abused. 2. The practice had served it's purpose. 3. The people were suffering so much because of the federal government's persecution of the saints and threats to seize the Temples. The members had done everything they could to live the principle. The Lord accepted their sacrifice and no longer required them to suffer. Virtually all who practiced hated it and were greatly relieved to be rid of it.

There was virtually NO political pressure to give blacks the priesthood at the time of the revelation. There had been some pressure a few years earlier, but at the time, that pressure had passed.

The fact is, the Lord is a very smart politician. He understands the circumstances we are dealing with here on earth. He will direct his servants to institute policies that are not only morally appropriate, but those that will allow his Church to move forward to the world. His work will NOT be thwarted.

Yes, his timing IS impeccable.

sharrona
layton, UT

@CATS: There was virtually NO political pressure to give blacks the priesthood at the time of the revelation. There had been some pressure a few years earlier, but at the time, that pressure had passed. No way,

By 1978, Brazil was one of the strongest reasons why the ban was lifted. The opening of its new temple in Sao Paulo, the LDS Church was ordaining hundreds of Brazilians to its priesthood. Did the LDS Church ignore Brazilian history? Between 1538 and Brazil's abolition of slavery in 1888, about five million African slaves were brought to that country. Through mixed marriages, Mulattos make up a substantial portion of the Brazilian population. How would the LDS Church possibly know whether or not those being ordained were qualified? With the dedication of this temple only a few months away, it would seem imperative that the church either lift the ban or face the possibility of a public relations nightmare

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A few months earlier,Negroes in this Lifetime are denied the Priesthood( Mormon Doctrine,23rd printing 1977 p 527-228). Changed in later printings.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The claim that the Church repudiated polygamy as a condition for Utah to gain statehood is false. A realistic totally secualr assesment of the situation is that the Church repudiated polygamy because the government was seeking to destroy the Church as an institution if it continued. The state of Idaho had included in its constitution provisions that banned anyone who belong to a Church that advocated polygamy from voting. This meant that no Mormon could vote, even if he was a 30-year-old bachelor or if he was like Elder Anthon H. Lund of the 12, a man who had been married to his one and only wife for 30 plus years.

On a subject people have somehow linked to this article, Bruce R. McConkie in 1978 made a statement that every and all statement he had made before June of 1978 was made in darkness and that the added light and knowledge recieved by President Kimball's revelation meant those statements by him (and others, but specifically by him) were misguided guesses made in darkness.

Elder McConkie repudiated all his pre-1978 statements. People should stop quoting them.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Darius Gray and others have observed that the pressure on the Church about the matter of the priesthood restriciton of blacks was much lower in 1978 than it had been at any other time in the last decade.

Why God chose then to give a strong and unequivocal direction to end the policy, and why he had allowed it before, I do not know. I can think of some explanations that might explain it a little, but they are probably wrong. I would advise anyone who really cares to read Elder Sitati's general conference talk. I think he is alluding to this matter, but of course in Kenya the 1978 Revelation does not have the almost immediate effect in did in Nigeria and Ghana.

On this day we remember Martin Luther King, I think we should also remember Elijah Abel, Ruffin Bridgeforth, Joseph Freeman. Freemna was the first black man ordained to the Melchezidec Priesthood after the 1978 revelation, and the first black man sealed to his spouse (who was Hawaiian) in the temple (specifically Salt Lake City, and their children were sealed to them just aterward). The sealing was preformed by Thomas S. Monson.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Ruffin Bridgeforth was the first man of African descent ordained a high priest. He was ordained by Boyd K. Packer.

President Hinckley's powerful denouncing of racism at general conference was caused by his communications with Darius Gray and learning that some members of the Church continued to use hurtful and derogatory terms towards people of African descent.

I will be the first to say there is still too much racism in the Church. I am not sure that there is much the leaders of the Church can do more. If you actually read their talks they definantly do not countenance racism. Maybe more explicit denouncing of racism would help. Maybe Elder Oaks and Elder Holland should denounce racist justifications for the priesthood restriction in conference as they did in the interviews for the PBS program.

I guess the teaching that not accepting people of African descent in the Church is similar to the early reluctance to accept Gentiles in the Christian Church that has for many years been part of the Sunday School curriculum is a clear denouncing of racism, but maybe not explicit enough. I do not know the answer.

AZRods
Maricopa, AZ

I must admit that it's amusing though not surprising so see the critics jump on this subject. Very predictable.
Sad empty little lives.

kiaoraguy
Provo, UT

so much for free agency...

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Considering Jeffs is in prison on a life sentance, I find it hard to see how we are "giving a free pass" to people who claim to be acting in the name of religion. Ditto on the state seizing his slush fund, I mean trust fund. Even though in that case it might be given back into the hands of those who would use it to enforce religious conformity.

This article would be more credible if it gave all 8 questions, of course I do not expect much from the Associated Press. I do think mentions of these questions seem to be scare tactics to try to make these people seem excessively weird. Religious groups have a right to ask questions, and if people do not like them, they have the right to leave.

The Amish kick out large numbers of people, and so do the FLDS. That is the main message of the article. Prosecute people for crimes, but there is no evidence that Jeffs followers are currently involved in crimes, at least if they are abiding by his ban on sexual relations.

donn
layton, UT

RE: John Pack Lambert of Michigan ,On a subject people have somehow linked to this article, Bruce R. McConkie in 1978 made a statement that every and all statement he had made before June of 1978 was made in darkness.

Who can you trust? google, Mark E Peterson on race problems.

(Genesis 7:10 JST), And there was a blackness came upon all the children of Cainan, that they were despised among all people. And (Genesis 7:22 JST) ,..all the seed of Adam save it were the seed of Cain; for the seed of Cain were black and had not a place among them.

Claudio
Springville, Ut

It would be much appreciated if JPL refrained from making such broad comments that sound very much as though he is the fountain of knowledge for all things LDS. There is a very simple explanation for Elder McConkie's statements regarding blacks: he was wrong. Why some within the Church see fit to make such long excuses for his actions is beyond me. He was wrong, he was never perfect. That should be good enough for all of us.

ER in EUR
Belgrade, Serbia

I found JPL's comments to be balanced and informative. Some people talk in short sentances that carry a lot of content, others use longer sentances. I am glad to learn of what he had to say.

awsomeron
Waianae, HI

Jeffs is in Jail for Life.

Jeffs has No Power. Unless they subject them selfs to the Non Power.

Any Adult can be or belong to anything they want as this is America, You can put on a Burkka if you want to, and No one can stop you and in and of itself it is not a mental disorder.

Point, the Adults can do as they see fit, however the kids and the female kids most of all need to be watched by the State which ever one their in. Be it Arizona, Utah, Texas, California wherever.

Watched for such things as General Abuse, Sexual Abuse and Underage Marriage forced or other wise. Religion Does NOT Trump Law.

Small in number Abuse still needs to be stopped.

Forced Church Attendance can be seen as Abuse, and Forced Marriage is Abuse, also living a certain way out of fear of losing, House, Food and or Shelter is Abuse.

Also being Home, Group, or Non Schooled, sheltered in order to impose a certain logic or ideal as only or opposed to any-other is, or can be seen as Mental Health Abuse. (Brain Washing).

washcomom
Beaverton, OR

"'Do you accept Warren Jeffs as God's mouthpiece and your prophet,' and if you believe he can rule in all the affairs of your life," said (Lyle)Jessop."

I'd be scared that someone would try and take away my right to have my own free will and agency to direct my life according to the way I want to go. That is one of the most insane questions I've ever heard coming from the FLDS group.

GAmom
Athens, GA

Interesting sidnote, the FLDS has been snowing LDS leadership from bishops on up with letters and "revelations" from Jeffs withing the last month.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments