Reader comments
LDS Church hopes videos will help distinguish it from FLDS
162 comments | Read story
convoluted by nature | 11:32 a.m. June 26, 2008
The extremely convoluted nature of the LDS church, its history and ways, render
it impossible for it to differentiate itself from different polygamous sects.
Dixie Dan | 11:36 a.m. June 26, 2008
I think the LDS Church shot themselves in the foot by allowing polygamy to be
practiced in the open through out the state for the last 100 years. Even after
the first declaration announcing the stop of polyamy, it continued forcing a
second annoucement on the subject. This, couple with the fact that a large
percentage of Utah residents are themselves descendants from polygamy families,
may be the reason why people still associate polygamy with the LDS Church.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 11:37 a.m. June 26, 2008
Will they acknowledge that Joseph Smith started it?
Thomas | 11:39 a.m. June 26, 2008
The state of Texas took every single child irregardless of age or gender that
the FLDS people at El Dorado had. A horrible injusice was done. Ane yet the LDS
sole concern is that the two groups not be confused.
I agree | 11:43 a.m. June 26, 2008
I agree completely. Very well put. The church shouldn't have to. I was
shocked to find out in my early twenties that there actually pastors of other
churches "teaching" about our doctrine, as if they actually knew it,
when they weren't even close. These were churches within my community.
I'd grown up going to church every Sunday and going to different wards when
we traveled. Not once did I ever see, what these guys taught from the pulpit of
their own churches, about LDS members actions and beliefs. I was horrified.
They were teaching adults and children this. They were teaching hate. I hope
and pray those pastors no longer exist.
Ken | 11:44 a.m. June 26, 2008
Thinking introspectively as a Mormon myself, I have to be honest with myself and
state that I'd probably do no better than the survey respondents in
distinguishing between, say, the different varieties of Baptists, Catholics,
Jews, Muslims, etc. I'm guessing that would be the case with most members
of the LDS Church.
Personally, I don't think it should be surprising that people less familiar with the history of the Mormon movement don't always fully appreciate the differences between LDS and FLDS. I know the LDS Church regularly says that they/we have no association whatsoever with polygamy, but I wonder whether such a statement may not be confusing to those who know something but not all about Mormonism. The fact is is that the LDS and FLDS churches do, in fact, share common roots, but that there has been no association between the two groups and their practices for over a century.
The names are similar, but both groups are heading in completely opposite directions. Somehow that seems like the clearer response to those who are understandably confused.
Personally, I don't think it should be surprising that people less familiar with the history of the Mormon movement don't always fully appreciate the differences between LDS and FLDS. I know the LDS Church regularly says that they/we have no association whatsoever with polygamy, but I wonder whether such a statement may not be confusing to those who know something but not all about Mormonism. The fact is is that the LDS and FLDS churches do, in fact, share common roots, but that there has been no association between the two groups and their practices for over a century.
The names are similar, but both groups are heading in completely opposite directions. Somehow that seems like the clearer response to those who are understandably confused.
Re: truth | 11:54 a.m. June 26, 2008
"It's sad that people can be so bias & so corrupting that they try
to hurt another religion"
Isn't that what this article and these videos are doing to the FLDS?
Isn't that what this article and these videos are doing to the FLDS?
Chris Plummer | 11:57 a.m. June 26, 2008
I hope it comes out on VHS
Don't accept them | 12:02 p.m. June 26, 2008
I would certainly hope that by now Mormon people might understand that no matter
what they do, there will always be those who do not accept them as Christians.
freethinker | 12:13 p.m. June 26, 2008
While it may seem to some it is wise to differentiate between the LDS and the
FLDS, i would like to ask the question of the LDS if they truly believe the
teachings of Joseph Smith. I see you saying " Yes we do", but where is
the devotion? Are you Fair Weather Friends? Or do you see how necessary it is to
want to run every time there is trouble? You see my point!
We own this problem | 12:22 p.m. June 26, 2008
We started the practice of polygamy in this country (on a large scale). These
groups claim the same roots as us and claim we have gone astray. They believe
in the BOM, Joseph Smith, BY, etc. They lived in this state (and elsewhere) and
practiced their perversions, just like our ancestors did (alas!). We will have
a hard time "distancing" ourselves from these groups, they
"look" to much like JS, BY, John Taylor, Heber C. Kimball, Lorenzo
Snow, etc. The marrying of young girls to older men, marrying large numbers of
wives, marrying other men's wives, etc., it all happened here under our
leaders. Once you actually, independently, research this sordid history you get
no "help". If you ask questions you get no answers. So, my advise
is, if you like the world the way you believe it to be and don't want your
world rocked....don't learn anymore about this subject. If you do the
whole thing comes down.
George Miller | 12:36 p.m. June 26, 2008
The Corporate LDS' pitiful concern with its public image reflects that it
is a dying branch of the Restoration and will soon be indistinguishable from the
Talibangelists and any other number of fair-weather hucksters. While the FLDS
is wicked indeed and cannot be considered "Mormon", there is no reason
to mercilessly persecute people who believe in the principle and wish to
practice it the way the real prophets told us. SLC LDS will continualy suffer
reproof through the example of righteous believers in the whole gospel for its
abandonment of sacred ordinances, video or no video. This is one crack they
can't wiggle out of.
To: Re: truth | 11:54 a.m. | 12:43 p.m. June 26, 2008
No not exactly, bcause these videos are explaining the LDS viewpoints, not
corrupting, condeming and/or criticizing the FLDS - a simple "we belive
this...." is all that is needed because "everyone" (those who
read the news anyway) by now knows the FLDS practice polygamy, oh yeah and that
children are groomed to be abusers/victims (which I don't believe by the
way) and whatever else is in the media.
That is why it is important to get it out there in the media, what the LDS church DOES believe in, so crazy stuff like this isn't associated with the LDS in the void of other beliefs.
And why it is SO SO important that people look to the source for information, be it catholics, mormons, baptists, FLDS, jews, muslims, etc. Don't let the "bad news" define the religion, ie, the 9/11 bombers were crazy guys who happened to be muslim, not true representatives of their religion. That guy who chopped and hid his wife's body isn't typical of all LDS RM's. That scoutmaster who molests isn't typical of all LDS/non-LDS scoutmasters. and so on.
That is why it is important to get it out there in the media, what the LDS church DOES believe in, so crazy stuff like this isn't associated with the LDS in the void of other beliefs.
And why it is SO SO important that people look to the source for information, be it catholics, mormons, baptists, FLDS, jews, muslims, etc. Don't let the "bad news" define the religion, ie, the 9/11 bombers were crazy guys who happened to be muslim, not true representatives of their religion. That guy who chopped and hid his wife's body isn't typical of all LDS RM's. That scoutmaster who molests isn't typical of all LDS/non-LDS scoutmasters. and so on.
Active but Truthful | 12:47 p.m. June 26, 2008
I do not fault the church for doing this we are different now, and as Latter Day
Saints, we will never embrace polygamy again even if it were to become legal.
We are modern. This is not an unchanging church, we have changed dramatically.
We abhor polygamy, but the early church embraced it, in radical ways. 120 years
ago, we were the FLDS church.
I still believe God does not change, but even as an active LDS member, I cannot reconcile in my mind Joseph Smith's polygamous ways, and deceit to Emma Smith. In my mind, polygamy had nothing to do with God. Even though I grew up in the church I was never told J.S. was a polygamist. It was never discussed. It is not "faithful history." We cannot understand it, because it is so foreign to our modern church. Yes, the LDS church changes. I embrace its changes. This is truthful history.
HOWEVER,
I still believe God does not change, but even as an active LDS member, I cannot reconcile in my mind Joseph Smith's polygamous ways, and deceit to Emma Smith. In my mind, polygamy had nothing to do with God. Even though I grew up in the church I was never told J.S. was a polygamist. It was never discussed. It is not "faithful history." We cannot understand it, because it is so foreign to our modern church. Yes, the LDS church changes. I embrace its changes. This is truthful history.
HOWEVER,
Anonymous | 12:47 p.m. June 26, 2008
Who cares what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other leaders did? That is not
now and never was meant to be what FLDS leaders have made of the FLDS church.
Yes the LDS are different from the FLDS. Every Protestant church broke away from
Catholics, and the protestant churches do not call themselves Fundamentalist
Cahtolics, etc. The FLDS broke away from our church over 100 years ago, and
that is where the likeness ends.
Anonymous | 12:50 p.m. June 26, 2008
I don't see how this problem can ever be reconciled.
The world knows that the LDS quit The Principle in order to attain US statehood.
Perhaps things will change in a thousand years or so.
The world knows that the LDS quit The Principle in order to attain US statehood.
Perhaps things will change in a thousand years or so.
What? | 12:52 p.m. June 26, 2008
RE: Don't accept them
Are you kidding? Of course there will always be people who don't agree or accept any type of religion but I think you are a little out of place to say in general that 'Mormons' are not considered Christian. I have to agree with Ken, yes as a Mormon myself I can see where the confusion could take place for those who either are unfamiliar or only have a limited knowledge of our religion, but I think before we should have to start making formal statements and releasing documents to prove we do not practice pologamy, maybe just maybe you should do your research first.
RE Thomas:
I guess I'm a little confused... What do you think the LDS Church was suppose to do? It's not their place to question the State of Texas or their actions, place blame where blame is due! Don't drag the LDS Church into it, they had nothing to do with it!!
Are you kidding? Of course there will always be people who don't agree or accept any type of religion but I think you are a little out of place to say in general that 'Mormons' are not considered Christian. I have to agree with Ken, yes as a Mormon myself I can see where the confusion could take place for those who either are unfamiliar or only have a limited knowledge of our religion, but I think before we should have to start making formal statements and releasing documents to prove we do not practice pologamy, maybe just maybe you should do your research first.
RE Thomas:
I guess I'm a little confused... What do you think the LDS Church was suppose to do? It's not their place to question the State of Texas or their actions, place blame where blame is due! Don't drag the LDS Church into it, they had nothing to do with it!!
Anonymous | 1:01 p.m. June 26, 2008
The church, as I see it, is trying to put some distance between itself and
polygamy from a PR perspective. They really do spend a lot of energy crafting
the image and brand. However, just below the surface the image fades for me.
This is because the church, through the state government which it virtually
controls as owner, ignores polygamy here. You want to change the image? Let it
be illegal here as if illegal was something to be prosecuted.
Confused | 1:09 p.m. June 26, 2008
I would like to know what the FLDS people call themselves? Does anybody know?
What I do know is that we used to call them cohabs.
Jessica | 1:07 p.m. June 26, 2008
Most Mormons would be suprised to realize that if Joseph Smith were alive today,
he would think the FLDS is the right one. The FLDS never stopped practicing
polygamy and never made the changes to the Book of Mormon that the LDS has made.
To "We own this problem" | 1:10 p.m. June 26, 2008
Unfortunately your understanding of the subject is tainted and slightly skued.
You know a little to be dangerous to yourself, but not enough to lecture or
write on the subject.
Just as other religions were offshoots of the early Christians, so the FLDS is an offshoot of the LDS church. If you are trying to argue that the LDS started it and so should accept they created the problem, you are not acknowledging that God's church can and does change under the guidance of prophets and revelation. The early "church" clear back to the Old Testament evolved as revelation was received, thus practices changed. In the OT they used the Law of Moses. In large part it guided religious life by the 10 commandments and animal sacrifice. In the New Testament, under Jesus, that law was fulfilled. He ushered in a higher, or arguably, a different law. To simply, it was to love your neighbor and love God. These commandments embrace the old law and put us under a higher obligation. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.
Putting this all together, change has always been a part of the LDS church when supported by revelation.
Just as other religions were offshoots of the early Christians, so the FLDS is an offshoot of the LDS church. If you are trying to argue that the LDS started it and so should accept they created the problem, you are not acknowledging that God's church can and does change under the guidance of prophets and revelation. The early "church" clear back to the Old Testament evolved as revelation was received, thus practices changed. In the OT they used the Law of Moses. In large part it guided religious life by the 10 commandments and animal sacrifice. In the New Testament, under Jesus, that law was fulfilled. He ushered in a higher, or arguably, a different law. To simply, it was to love your neighbor and love God. These commandments embrace the old law and put us under a higher obligation. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.
Putting this all together, change has always been a part of the LDS church when supported by revelation.
Want to know, really? | 1:13 p.m. June 26, 2008
If you want to know, really, then read the following to get a handle on the
"polygamy" issue.
1) "Mormon Polygamy, a History" by Richard Van Wagoner
2) "In Sacred Lonliness" by Todd Compton
3) "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman
All written by LDS Historians and all are excellent and very balanced. Please read, they are available in libraries, selections on-line and can be bought at bookstores or thru the internet.
There's a reason why this whole subject won't go away for the LDS church and you will see it when you carefully read these books.
1) "Mormon Polygamy, a History" by Richard Van Wagoner
2) "In Sacred Lonliness" by Todd Compton
3) "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman
All written by LDS Historians and all are excellent and very balanced. Please read, they are available in libraries, selections on-line and can be bought at bookstores or thru the internet.
There's a reason why this whole subject won't go away for the LDS church and you will see it when you carefully read these books.
Anonymous | 1:17 p.m. June 26, 2008
If you live in Utah, yes, we don't need them. But people here keeps
forgeting there's a whole big world outside of Utah. I have heard many
comments from friends who lives overseas about how people confused both groups
and even the media can't get it right. So, I do think the videos are
helpful.
For cryin out loud | 1:20 p.m. June 26, 2008
I'm LDS and a descendent of polygamists - and have no problem with it.
What the FLDS do now bears little resemblence to my ancestors. Mormon women
were among the first to vote, among the first women doctors, they earned livings
and were politically active.
I've read "Christian" books that dealt with the O.T. patriarchs, and have to laugh how they work so hard to condemn polygamy as a barbaric ancient practice while not condemning Abraham etc. who were obviously blessed and accepted with God while practicing it.
The current condemnations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are also ridiculous. Most if not all of Joseph's wives were apparently to be in the eternities, but there's no evidence he lived as a husband here on earth to anyone but Emma. Why otherwise are there no descendents from any other wife? He had 11 children with Emma, obviously he could father them. And if you think Brigham Young was lecherous - you really need to look at some photographs of those wives :-). See next post on Mark Twain's opinion...
I've read "Christian" books that dealt with the O.T. patriarchs, and have to laugh how they work so hard to condemn polygamy as a barbaric ancient practice while not condemning Abraham etc. who were obviously blessed and accepted with God while practicing it.
The current condemnations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are also ridiculous. Most if not all of Joseph's wives were apparently to be in the eternities, but there's no evidence he lived as a husband here on earth to anyone but Emma. Why otherwise are there no descendents from any other wife? He had 11 children with Emma, obviously he could father them. And if you think Brigham Young was lecherous - you really need to look at some photographs of those wives :-). See next post on Mark Twain's opinion...
truthsayer | 1:20 p.m. June 26, 2008
We now have nothing to do with polygamy, but we started it here. Should fess up
to that . . . and the fact that we still have faithful men being sealed for
eternities to multiple women.
That would be celestial polygamy, wouldn't it?
That would be celestial polygamy, wouldn't it?
Mark Twain on the Mormons | 1:21 p.m. June 26, 2008
"the Mormon women ... these poor, ungainly and pathetically
"homely" creatures ... the man that marries one of them has done an
act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind,
not their harsh censure - and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed
of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in
his presence and worship in silence." Mark Twain
obviously tongue in cheek, but still...
obviously tongue in cheek, but still...
Rich | 1:23 p.m. June 26, 2008
I think it laughable that so many mormons get mad when other churches teach
about the LDS doctrine. One person on this blog wrote-
"I was shocked to find out in my early twenties that there actually pastors of other churches "teaching" about our doctrine, as if they actually knew it, when they weren't even close."
To you I would say that you are the one confused. When I was mormon I did not know the LDS doctrine, as soon as I learned what Mormonism truly is, I left the church, and so would many of you if you just opened your eyes and called a duck a duck.
"I was shocked to find out in my early twenties that there actually pastors of other churches "teaching" about our doctrine, as if they actually knew it, when they weren't even close."
To you I would say that you are the one confused. When I was mormon I did not know the LDS doctrine, as soon as I learned what Mormonism truly is, I left the church, and so would many of you if you just opened your eyes and called a duck a duck.
Gilly | 1:34 p.m. June 26, 2008
Who really cares? If they polled the general population they'd probabley
find that the great majority of people could care less who's LDS, FLDS,
TLC, RLDS, etc. The church is going to have to come to grips with the fact that
the Restoration movement is comprised of more than just the LDS faction. I find
these videos to be the same as if the Methodist church made videos on why they
are not the same as the United Church of Christ, both of which are Protestant,
just as the LDS and FLDS are different, yet still Mormon and still part is the
same movement.
lol | 1:42 p.m. June 26, 2008
Oh, Anonymous 12:50 pm. . .you crack me up, you really do. *wipes tears of
laughter from eyes*
Really? | 1:43 p.m. June 26, 2008
RE: Jessica
I wasn't aware anyone has had contact with Joseph Smith since he died. How is he doing?
I wasn't aware anyone has had contact with Joseph Smith since he died. How is he doing?
Charlee | 1:43 p.m. June 26, 2008
"Every Protestant church broke away from Catholics, and the protestant
churches do not call themselves Fundamentalist Cahtolics, etc. The FLDS broke
away from our church over 100 years ago ..." (from Annonymous)
I've been saying this all along -- it should be a no-brainer! It's just fortunate for everyone's understanding that protestant churches chose names under which to associate that did not cause any confusion.
I've been saying this all along -- it should be a no-brainer! It's just fortunate for everyone's understanding that protestant churches chose names under which to associate that did not cause any confusion.
Have Cake & Eat It Too | 1:46 p.m. June 26, 2008
The problem the LDS church is faced with is it propensity to have its cake and
eat it too. Nowhere is this more of a conundrum than the polygamy (to be more
accurate, Polygny - males only have more than one wife, women only have one
husband... as opposed to polygamy being both sexes having multiple spouses),
where the church out of one side of its mouth tries to make the world believe
that they don't practice polygamy or espouse its practice, yet its
doctrinal base clearly states that polygamy is an eternal principle that WILL be
practiced by its saints before the Second Coming of Christ, etc., etc.
To distance itself from this divisive issue the Church either disavows polygamy altogether, even as a doctrine/religious/spiritual premise, or it embraces the principle (even if not practiced in mortality, but will be in the hereafter... which will mean the church really does believe in the practice...)
In a work of black-&-white perspective that the LDSchurch helped to build, they now have to walk the talk or stick to their guns, regardless of the consequences. They just can't have it both ways in a world that requires integrity in word and action.
To distance itself from this divisive issue the Church either disavows polygamy altogether, even as a doctrine/religious/spiritual premise, or it embraces the principle (even if not practiced in mortality, but will be in the hereafter... which will mean the church really does believe in the practice...)
In a work of black-&-white perspective that the LDSchurch helped to build, they now have to walk the talk or stick to their guns, regardless of the consequences. They just can't have it both ways in a world that requires integrity in word and action.
John Lambert | 2:01 p.m. June 26, 2008
I applaud Elder Cook and others for their well thought out and reasoned
statements. The Church needs to make sure that it is not confused with other
groups.
If people are going to attack my church at least I want them to do it because of things we actually do and not because we support arranged marriages. I read an attack on the Church for that in the San Francisco chronicle just yesterday.
If people are going to attack my church at least I want them to do it because of things we actually do and not because we support arranged marriages. I read an attack on the Church for that in the San Francisco chronicle just yesterday.
Sarah | 2:02 p.m. June 26, 2008
To "We own this problem": I have to disagree with you on your
statement. I am not ashamed of my ancestors' polygamous past, nor am I
appalled by their actions. I used to have some problems with the idea, it
didn't sit comfortably with me. While I believed that it had come from the
Lord, I didn't understand how it was acceptable to Him, and I hoped that
were it ever reinstated, it would never happen to me personally because I
didn't know if I could live it. But you know what? Just this year, starting
in January, I began to learn more about the principle, and started to gain some
new perspective. I actually gained a firm testimony of the practice, and
it's funny to me that this happened just mere weeks before the FLDS raid.
It's given me a lot more compassion for our friends in Texas.
To "Jessica": Actually, he wouldn't think that at all. Yes, the FLDS church is more similar to that which he restored, but Joseph Smith, more than anybody else at his time, knew that God continued to give new revelations. He would be able to recognize the Lord's true church, no problem.
To "Jessica": Actually, he wouldn't think that at all. Yes, the FLDS church is more similar to that which he restored, but Joseph Smith, more than anybody else at his time, knew that God continued to give new revelations. He would be able to recognize the Lord's true church, no problem.
Hum? | 2:01 p.m. June 26, 2008
Re: Anonymous.
The LDS church didn�t start polygamy; read the Old Testament. You�ll see polygamy was condoned by God. Our society promotes adultery, fornication, and homosexuality, which are all condemned by the Bible. Hum?
BTY "We own this problem": It wasn�t a large scale. A small percentage of early church members had multiple wives. Get your facts right.
The early 1800s were a different time with different circumstances. Imagine being a single woman who has been driven out of town by an angry mob of Christians, your house burned down, and friends and family have been beaten. Some men (right or wrong) took the responsibility of caring for multiple wives. Get over it!
I�ll remove the splinter from my eye if you remove the beam from yours.
The LDS church didn�t start polygamy; read the Old Testament. You�ll see polygamy was condoned by God. Our society promotes adultery, fornication, and homosexuality, which are all condemned by the Bible. Hum?
BTY "We own this problem": It wasn�t a large scale. A small percentage of early church members had multiple wives. Get your facts right.
The early 1800s were a different time with different circumstances. Imagine being a single woman who has been driven out of town by an angry mob of Christians, your house burned down, and friends and family have been beaten. Some men (right or wrong) took the responsibility of caring for multiple wives. Get over it!
I�ll remove the splinter from my eye if you remove the beam from yours.
So, so sad... | 2:04 p.m. June 26, 2008
When I look at the Polygamist women in Texas my heart breaks for them. And
I'm so grateful that we have changed. The past really isn't all
it's cracked up to be.
Randy | 2:07 p.m. June 26, 2008
This is good that the LDS church is doing this because i DO NOT want to be
associated with the FLDS wackos. These people happen to make my skin crawl every
time i hear anything about them, and with their great lack of astute abilities.
John Lambert | 2:09 p.m. June 26, 2008
To Thomas at 11:39,
You have obviosuly not read through Elder Cook's statement. He said that if there was abuse of children it is to be condemned, but that the leaders of the church do not know all the situation.
Although the way Elder Cook said it it seemed to be aimed at the FLDS and the church does not want to directly attack the State of Texas for trying to enforce the law, his comments could also be interpreted to apply to state sponsored abuse of children.
Beyond this, the children have been returned to their parents, so the church addressing that issue is not worth while.
What is clear from some of the previous posts is that two false ideas continue in the minds of most people. One is that the church is some sort of "polygamous group". The church has excommunicated many people, including an apostle, on charges of adultery beganing in 1920 for actions that these people felt were polygamy the church has clearly showed that it has no toleration for such things. Excommunications date back at least to 1909 and were performed on people who had entered polygamy at least as early as 1904.
You have obviosuly not read through Elder Cook's statement. He said that if there was abuse of children it is to be condemned, but that the leaders of the church do not know all the situation.
Although the way Elder Cook said it it seemed to be aimed at the FLDS and the church does not want to directly attack the State of Texas for trying to enforce the law, his comments could also be interpreted to apply to state sponsored abuse of children.
Beyond this, the children have been returned to their parents, so the church addressing that issue is not worth while.
What is clear from some of the previous posts is that two false ideas continue in the minds of most people. One is that the church is some sort of "polygamous group". The church has excommunicated many people, including an apostle, on charges of adultery beganing in 1920 for actions that these people felt were polygamy the church has clearly showed that it has no toleration for such things. Excommunications date back at least to 1909 and were performed on people who had entered polygamy at least as early as 1904.
Wow | 2:11 p.m. June 26, 2008
It never ceases to amaze me how many people look for any articles that include
"LDS" in the title, and then go insult the church on the comment
thread, no matter what the article actually says.
John Lambert | 2:15 p.m. June 26, 2008
Did the Church allow polygamy to be practiced openly in Utah for the last
century?
I think this is built on a lot of misnomers. The CHurch does not control the government of Utah. If the church were to proactively push for more stringent laws against polygamy or its more strong enforcement we would hear cries of religious persecution and "inquisition".
On the other hand. In the 1930s Utah instituted much stricter laws against polygamy, that appear to have been supported by Hugh B. Brown and I am pretty sure Herbert Maw, latter a Utah governor and then a mission president, was some how involved in instituting these laws.
During the 1930s many polygamists were sent to jail in Utah. There are many claims that LDS officials aided and abbetted the Short Creek Raid.
One other question, how did Short Creek come to be a community of non-LDS. It started when the church decided to institute the test oath in some areas. This oath required people to affirm the brethren were not practicing or supporting polygamy and that polygamy was not currently acceptable. Those who failed to support it were then excommunicated.
I think this is built on a lot of misnomers. The CHurch does not control the government of Utah. If the church were to proactively push for more stringent laws against polygamy or its more strong enforcement we would hear cries of religious persecution and "inquisition".
On the other hand. In the 1930s Utah instituted much stricter laws against polygamy, that appear to have been supported by Hugh B. Brown and I am pretty sure Herbert Maw, latter a Utah governor and then a mission president, was some how involved in instituting these laws.
During the 1930s many polygamists were sent to jail in Utah. There are many claims that LDS officials aided and abbetted the Short Creek Raid.
One other question, how did Short Creek come to be a community of non-LDS. It started when the church decided to institute the test oath in some areas. This oath required people to affirm the brethren were not practicing or supporting polygamy and that polygamy was not currently acceptable. Those who failed to support it were then excommunicated.
Paul in MD | 2:14 p.m. June 26, 2008
To Rich - Think about it this way. Americans get mad when the French talk about
faults they see in Americans. The Irish get mad when the English put them down.
Democrats get mad when Republicans talk about what Democrats believe.
It's pretty universal, and it isn't really laughable. As a former LDS
member, you know more about the church's doctrine than the pastors the
other poster was talking about. I may disagree with your viewpoint, but you
have a firmer foundation from which to talk than most other denominations'
teachers.
As for calling a duck a duck, I've been LDS for over 30 years, attended church in Utah, two East Coast areas and Japan, and more than any other church I've attended or heard about, the teachings in the LDS church are consistent. Everywhere.
We profess that our doctrine or policies come from God, through a prophet. Most other Christian denominations allow or embrace changes to their doctrine or policies based on grass roots efforts from the members. Which is more "enlightened," doctrine from God or from the membership at large?
As for calling a duck a duck, I've been LDS for over 30 years, attended church in Utah, two East Coast areas and Japan, and more than any other church I've attended or heard about, the teachings in the LDS church are consistent. Everywhere.
We profess that our doctrine or policies come from God, through a prophet. Most other Christian denominations allow or embrace changes to their doctrine or policies based on grass roots efforts from the members. Which is more "enlightened," doctrine from God or from the membership at large?
Larry | 2:17 p.m. June 26, 2008
I think any member of the LDS church that associates or sympathizes with FLDS
polygamy men should be kicked out of the LDS church!!! We do not need those kind
of misleading members to associate with the normal group of LDS, and messing
around with peoples heads. It's very confusing to those who are trying to
gain a testimony, and it also gives a very bad impression for the LDS church and
it's members which is not good.
Paul in MD | 2:21 p.m. June 26, 2008
Polygamy has been blasted by several posters here, and many in the past, as
completely heretical. Read the Old Testament. Solomon was commanded by God to
take multiple wives. He only got in trouble when he took wives he was not
specifically commanded to marry. King David was also commanded to marry
multiple wives. He was under no condemnation until he lusted after, and
murdered to obtain, Bathsheba.
The only people I hear talking about the Church abandoning polygamy are those bashing the Church about it. I have never heard anything over the pulpit or in print distancing the LDS church from polygamy except to clarify that we do not currently practice it - not since 1890. We believe, and have Biblical support, that it is part of God's plan, but don't practice it because we believe that God has told us to stop.
A lot of people say the church stopped because of political pressure. If there is no modern revelation, that is the only explanation that makes sense. But modern revelation is a reality, and I will not question God's motives or timing.
The only people I hear talking about the Church abandoning polygamy are those bashing the Church about it. I have never heard anything over the pulpit or in print distancing the LDS church from polygamy except to clarify that we do not currently practice it - not since 1890. We believe, and have Biblical support, that it is part of God's plan, but don't practice it because we believe that God has told us to stop.
A lot of people say the church stopped because of political pressure. If there is no modern revelation, that is the only explanation that makes sense. But modern revelation is a reality, and I will not question God's motives or timing.
To: Active But Truthful | 2:21 p.m. June 26, 2008
I wasn't sure you realized in your message, but you were quoted saying
"I still beleive God does not change"....then at the end you said
"Yes, the LDS church changes. I embrace it's changes."
hmm.....very interesting concept indeed!
hmm.....very interesting concept indeed!
John Lambert | 2:26 p.m. June 26, 2008
Ken,
Do not project your ignorance onto others. I know the difference between Shi'ah and Sunni Muslims, and can almost explain the difference between the Aluvites and Aluwites.
I know that the Missionary Baptist Church is a historically black denomination, the Southern Baptists are historically white and the American Baptists are much more open minded than the Southern Baptists and broke with the other group during the Civil War.
Maybe people who grew up in Utah do not know much about these different organizations, but those of us who grew up in other parts of the United States do.
I did have the companion who made the unacceptable mistake of confusing Christian Scientists with Scientologists in a conversation with a Christian Scientist. It made the person quite angry for very obvious reasons.
Maybe ignorance abounds, but there is no excuse for it. People should take the time to know enough at least to know Scientologists are not Christian while Christian Scientists are.
Do not project your ignorance onto others. I know the difference between Shi'ah and Sunni Muslims, and can almost explain the difference between the Aluvites and Aluwites.
I know that the Missionary Baptist Church is a historically black denomination, the Southern Baptists are historically white and the American Baptists are much more open minded than the Southern Baptists and broke with the other group during the Civil War.
Maybe people who grew up in Utah do not know much about these different organizations, but those of us who grew up in other parts of the United States do.
I did have the companion who made the unacceptable mistake of confusing Christian Scientists with Scientologists in a conversation with a Christian Scientist. It made the person quite angry for very obvious reasons.
Maybe ignorance abounds, but there is no excuse for it. People should take the time to know enough at least to know Scientologists are not Christian while Christian Scientists are.
John Lambert | 2:29 p.m. June 26, 2008
To the 11:54 AM poster,
These articles and videos are a proactive depiction of the LDS Church. Unlike some other palces no one is calling anyone a "cult" or using other degrading terms.
The videos are all about what people are doing and standing for. I think you did not read Elder Cook's statement "People have a right to worship as they choose". He is just trying to tell people what we believe and do, not trying to denigrate the beliefs and actions of others.
It is possible to say what one does without attacking others.
These articles and videos are a proactive depiction of the LDS Church. Unlike some other palces no one is calling anyone a "cult" or using other degrading terms.
The videos are all about what people are doing and standing for. I think you did not read Elder Cook's statement "People have a right to worship as they choose". He is just trying to tell people what we believe and do, not trying to denigrate the beliefs and actions of others.
It is possible to say what one does without attacking others.
Paul in MD | 2:30 p.m. June 26, 2008
To Dixie Dan - which would have caused a bigger whole in our foot? Practicing
polygamy according to a commandment from God, or ignoring a commandment from
God?
I heard a statement by one of our church leaders not long ago that I really like - "I would rather offend man by talking about God than offend God by not."
To borrow from that statement, I would rather offend man by following a prophet of God than offend God by not. You may not believe the LDS church is headed by prophets (judging by the posts here I'd say that's a pretty safe statement), but I do.
Most LDS don't follow blindly. We study, we ponder and we pray for confirmation from the Spirit that what we've heard is true. I believe, based on careful study, thought, discussion and prayer. I'm not sure I'd practice polygamy myself, but I believe it is a part of God's plan, and I won't argue with that.
I heard a statement by one of our church leaders not long ago that I really like - "I would rather offend man by talking about God than offend God by not."
To borrow from that statement, I would rather offend man by following a prophet of God than offend God by not. You may not believe the LDS church is headed by prophets (judging by the posts here I'd say that's a pretty safe statement), but I do.
Most LDS don't follow blindly. We study, we ponder and we pray for confirmation from the Spirit that what we've heard is true. I believe, based on careful study, thought, discussion and prayer. I'm not sure I'd practice polygamy myself, but I believe it is a part of God's plan, and I won't argue with that.
Wowwie | 2:34 p.m. June 26, 2008
It never ceases to amaze me how the LDS defend their faith by demeaning others,
namecalling etc. But remember...it is the TRUE church of Christ. Guess that
means you don't have to be Christlike.
John Lambert | 2:38 p.m. June 26, 2008
To "We own this problem",
I have research a great deal into polygamy. I have read parts of Compton's less than truthful book. I have read Annie Tanner's downright disingenous book. I have read many other works.
Yet I have not had my faith shaken. The FLDS are not the living legacy of early LDS teachings. They are a distorted group that has accepted an extreme version of LDS teachings. They reject Brigham Young's counsel not to force women to marry you. They reject the duty to preach the gospel to all the world. They reject the Book of Jacob. They reject the authority of Wilford Woodruff and his clarifying revelation on the nature of sealings.
They have accepted Musser's insistance that the only purpose of sex is producing children. This is far different from Spencer W. Kimball's terachings on the matter.
Study does not destroy faith. If you want to really learn read Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling", read Alexander's biography of Wilford Woodruff and read the book "Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism". Also read Dalin H. Oaks CES fireside talk on honesty if you can hunt it down. There is truth out there.
I have research a great deal into polygamy. I have read parts of Compton's less than truthful book. I have read Annie Tanner's downright disingenous book. I have read many other works.
Yet I have not had my faith shaken. The FLDS are not the living legacy of early LDS teachings. They are a distorted group that has accepted an extreme version of LDS teachings. They reject Brigham Young's counsel not to force women to marry you. They reject the duty to preach the gospel to all the world. They reject the Book of Jacob. They reject the authority of Wilford Woodruff and his clarifying revelation on the nature of sealings.
They have accepted Musser's insistance that the only purpose of sex is producing children. This is far different from Spencer W. Kimball's terachings on the matter.
Study does not destroy faith. If you want to really learn read Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling", read Alexander's biography of Wilford Woodruff and read the book "Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism". Also read Dalin H. Oaks CES fireside talk on honesty if you can hunt it down. There is truth out there.
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.
- 2 arrested in Roy double slaying 4:09 p.m.
- Bountiful art center seeks drawings 4:07 p.m.
- Oil settles above $78 3:50 p.m.
- Woods settles his lawsuit 3:47 p.m.
- Charles Gibson to retire 3:46 p.m.
- Bishop Burton: These are good times 3:38 p.m.
- Holiday television program listings 3:30 p.m.
- Obama aunt anguished by separation 3:16 p.m.
- Police release holiday safety video 3:15 p.m.
- GM CEO Henderson resigns 3:15 p.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- MWC '09 season in review
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
900 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime482
- Hall reprimanded by MWC399
- Max Hall issues apology386
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal341
- Utes won't respond to Hall272
- BYU says Hall incident resolved215
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game147
- BYU is champion of the state142
- Cave to be sealed with body inside122
My husband was teaching his 6th-grade class in Salt Lake last year when...
Latest comments
Who Coaches East HS?
That's one big ward if it represents 95% of LDS in Utah. Let's not...
Maybe he wasn't aware of the ACORN drama because he focused on real news, not...
Things could be worse.
hall had lots of charcter not telling the sex doll story, so even theough he...
"If his story is true, it's an outrageous and terrible thing those Utah fans...
When the word "hate" is used when talking about a rivalry it will eventually...
doesn't the Y at least say they don't condone or endorse these comments?...
Afraid of a team that couldn't beat a lame Ute team that lost at home to...
This entire story is sad and heartbreaking. Seems as though there were...
Advertisements
This will be an age of ignorance and defending against it.