Reader comments
LDS Church addresses FLDS confusion
199 comments | Read story
God help you all | 1:30 p.m. June 27, 2008
It's quite tiresome reading all you men on these posts who support
polygamy. You men are completely hopeless. And please don't come back
posing as a women--- It looks too foolish! just as does the whole made up
polygamy malarkey stuff. The only revelation you men have is below the belt
buckle. I only hope that God can intervene with your evil beliefs and practices
before there are more women and children abused and destroyed by such wicked
men.
kenny | 1:34 p.m. June 27, 2008
There are still alot of Fundamentalist in the LDS church who hang on to old ways
regarding marriage,spouse,children,family,etc.In those regards they should be
quite comfortable associating with members of the FLDS church. But doing so they
will get wacked over the head with their membership records by their bishop.
Comments continue below
Funny Farm | 1:49 p.m. June 27, 2008
Do you guys know how ridiculous these comments sound to any non-Mormon living
outside of Utah?
It's no wonder people lump Mormons with all the other cults.
It's no wonder people lump Mormons with all the other cults.
H D J | 2:08 p.m. June 27, 2008
Humm? Looks like another FLDS above posing as a Protestant- What next? Better
put some more good words in for your FLDS men, because they are not as holy as
the women appear. An X FLDS, and happy!
realitycheck | 2:43 p.m. June 27, 2008
if everyone gave up on organized religion and stopped praying, going to church
or temple, defending their religion, teaching religion, hiding their children
from the world, and giving money to their church - and spent the same amount of
time and money to actually help people in need... do you realize how much
better the world would be?
Which would God (whichever one you honor) prefer? That you spend the morning praying and the afternoon preaching about it, or that you spend your day helping an elderly neighbor and saving a child from being repressed.
If you're not sure, then you have little faith in God but much faith in the ramblings of old men.
And if you already know this, then doesn't this whole LDS/FLDS argument seem kind of irrelevant?
Which would God (whichever one you honor) prefer? That you spend the morning praying and the afternoon preaching about it, or that you spend your day helping an elderly neighbor and saving a child from being repressed.
If you're not sure, then you have little faith in God but much faith in the ramblings of old men.
And if you already know this, then doesn't this whole LDS/FLDS argument seem kind of irrelevant?
Funny Farm | 2:52 p.m. June 27, 2008
I agree with you. For those of us living in other states, this LDS/FLDS really
looks like one church (LDS) is mad at the fact that another church (FLDS) is
making you look bad.
I would be willing to bet that a majority of us "outsiders" think you are one big CULT fighting for the most recognition.
I would be willing to bet that a majority of us "outsiders" think you are one big CULT fighting for the most recognition.
basketcase | 2:58 p.m. June 27, 2008
The only way the FLDS has been allowed to flourish sufficient to game the
system, to get tax payers to pay welfare fraud, fulmarase kids; to banish their
sons, and allow their daughters to be raped without ever learning a skill or
having opportunity for self sufficiency is because LDS members have been
sympathetic, winking, nodding, and permitting the abuses that keep the FLDS
going.
And we can see why | 3:27 p.m. June 27, 2008
The Church has had to come forward and once again clear the differences between
FLDS and LDS.
There ARE differences. Make no mistake.
Ignornance is bliss. People who dislike or disagree with the LDS Church will always find some way to rationalize and put them down.
I say, if you don't agree or believe it and you have no understanding of the faith..then sit down and hush up! Seriously. You make no sense whatsoever.
You've got people out there who hear rumors and read all of this nonsense here and are shaking their silly heads up and down in agreement because it makes them feel better.
There are too many to name here who have written the most unbelievable silly posts about the Church.
It's true, and people are afraid of truth and commitment to the Savior and His teachings. People like to be told that bad is good to bring comfort to their souls.
People who blast other religions are pathetic. And of course if they don't believe in Christ...telling them that is not what Christ taught or that it is not a Christ like act...means nothing to them...because they serioulsy have no feelings of respect towards others period.
There ARE differences. Make no mistake.
Ignornance is bliss. People who dislike or disagree with the LDS Church will always find some way to rationalize and put them down.
I say, if you don't agree or believe it and you have no understanding of the faith..then sit down and hush up! Seriously. You make no sense whatsoever.
You've got people out there who hear rumors and read all of this nonsense here and are shaking their silly heads up and down in agreement because it makes them feel better.
There are too many to name here who have written the most unbelievable silly posts about the Church.
It's true, and people are afraid of truth and commitment to the Savior and His teachings. People like to be told that bad is good to bring comfort to their souls.
People who blast other religions are pathetic. And of course if they don't believe in Christ...telling them that is not what Christ taught or that it is not a Christ like act...means nothing to them...because they serioulsy have no feelings of respect towards others period.
realitycheck | 3:41 p.m. June 27, 2008
The problem with polygamy, polygny, or any variations, is that it is illegal.
That forces those practicing it to hide from society, which has a significantly
detrimental effect on those who are innocent bystanders, like the children.
If it were legal, people wouldn't have to hide and anyone could come and go as they please. Much better for the children, and much better for the women as they could just say no.
The above assumes that those hiding from the world are doing so because of polygamy. If they hide simply to have more control over their followers and to break other laws (child brides, etc.) than legalization will have no reasonable effect.
Not sure which category the FLDS falls into, but I suspect it's as much about control as it is about polygamy. Otherwise they wouldn't enforce other restrictive controls such as dress codes, etc.
If it were legal, people wouldn't have to hide and anyone could come and go as they please. Much better for the children, and much better for the women as they could just say no.
The above assumes that those hiding from the world are doing so because of polygamy. If they hide simply to have more control over their followers and to break other laws (child brides, etc.) than legalization will have no reasonable effect.
Not sure which category the FLDS falls into, but I suspect it's as much about control as it is about polygamy. Otherwise they wouldn't enforce other restrictive controls such as dress codes, etc.
Susan from VA | 3:54 p.m. June 27, 2008
I am LDS although not raised as LDS. My Mother taught me if I couldn't say
something nice, don't say anthing at all. Isn't that what Jesus also
teaches us? Enough already.
realitycheck | 4:02 p.m. June 27, 2008
those of you comparing the LDS and FLDS church:
I have no real knowledge of either religion other than what I have read or seen. I am your average American that believes in a higher power but believes that that power (you call him God) is so great that prayer and church are a whisper in the breeze and He couldn't care less about that - and you will be judged by your treatment of others rather than your feverent adherance to practices that have absolutely nothing to do with helping your fellow man - and in some cases are actually detrimental to that end. I'm not alone.
I think the FLDS church is repressive and intolerant, and mentally abuses it's practitioners , especially the children.
I don't know much about the LDS church, but based on what I read about the beliefs of both, they appear to be very similar (other than polygamy) - EXCEPT the LDS do not hide from the world, and they provide every possible opportunity to their children.
That in itself is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. So, no, they are nothing like each other, especially in how they treat those in their care.
I have no real knowledge of either religion other than what I have read or seen. I am your average American that believes in a higher power but believes that that power (you call him God) is so great that prayer and church are a whisper in the breeze and He couldn't care less about that - and you will be judged by your treatment of others rather than your feverent adherance to practices that have absolutely nothing to do with helping your fellow man - and in some cases are actually detrimental to that end. I'm not alone.
I think the FLDS church is repressive and intolerant, and mentally abuses it's practitioners , especially the children.
I don't know much about the LDS church, but based on what I read about the beliefs of both, they appear to be very similar (other than polygamy) - EXCEPT the LDS do not hide from the world, and they provide every possible opportunity to their children.
That in itself is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. So, no, they are nothing like each other, especially in how they treat those in their care.
bblackmoor | 4:49 p.m. June 27, 2008
The real problem here is that the Salt Lake City group was permitted to register
the mark "Mormons". There has always been and always will be people
who want to enshrine their own superstitions as the "correct" set of
beliefs. That one group of mormons has been permitted to seize legal grounds to
deny other groups of mormons the right to use that title is just wrong.
Argue about the validity of their respective superstitions all you want, but one side should not have the government's backing against the other over what they are permitted to call themselves.
This is yet another in an endless series of examples demonstrating how grievously broken our laws are when it comes to copyright, patents, and trademarks.
Argue about the validity of their respective superstitions all you want, but one side should not have the government's backing against the other over what they are permitted to call themselves.
This is yet another in an endless series of examples demonstrating how grievously broken our laws are when it comes to copyright, patents, and trademarks.
bblackmoor | 4:53 p.m. June 27, 2008
Does anyone else find it more than a little hypocritical that the LDS will claim
the label "Christian" while denying the label "Mormon" to an
offshoot of their own organization?
Sheppy | 5:05 p.m. June 27, 2008
From the Church of Jesus Christ of Lattr-day Saints: We aren't Mormons.
Call us Latter-day Saints. Oh - and they (the FLDS) aren't Mormons either,
so quit calling everyone Mormons.
The truth is, the LDS church has no right to define what a Mormon is any more than the Catholic church gets to define what a Christian is. I am a Mormon. I believe in the devine sonship of Jesus Christ. I believe in the prophet Joseph Smith and I believe in the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor and many other "Mormons".
What I don't believe is that the LDS church can walk away from the teachings of these men and still consider themselves Mormons.
So NO! Stop calling them (the LDS) Mormons. It waters down the restored gospel (Adam-God, United Order, Plural MArriage, etc.) until another restoration would need to take place before Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor - and Even Jesus Christ would recognize the truths that they died to provide for us.
There is no reason to call an LDS person a Mormon - they believe in very few of the restored truths that made them peculiar to begin with.
The truth is, the LDS church has no right to define what a Mormon is any more than the Catholic church gets to define what a Christian is. I am a Mormon. I believe in the devine sonship of Jesus Christ. I believe in the prophet Joseph Smith and I believe in the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor and many other "Mormons".
What I don't believe is that the LDS church can walk away from the teachings of these men and still consider themselves Mormons.
So NO! Stop calling them (the LDS) Mormons. It waters down the restored gospel (Adam-God, United Order, Plural MArriage, etc.) until another restoration would need to take place before Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor - and Even Jesus Christ would recognize the truths that they died to provide for us.
There is no reason to call an LDS person a Mormon - they believe in very few of the restored truths that made them peculiar to begin with.
Adrienne | 5:15 p.m. June 27, 2008
If the Mormon, I mean LDS church wants to distance themselves from the fLDS
church, they would get rid of that section 132 in the D&C regarding polygamy
for good.
Jason | 5:39 p.m. June 27, 2008
Yeh ! I second that! get rid of section 132 in the D&C. If it is no longer
doctrine then no need to keep it around to torment the women folks.
Sorry for | 6:00 p.m. June 27, 2008
those in this blog that say that LDS church members are not Christians. Do they
understand by doing that they deny the atonement for us? Would I like to face
the Savior after this life on earth and explain why I denied millions of people
for him. The answer is NO!
I think we should pray for the misguided souls who are making these serious allegations.
I think we should pray for the misguided souls who are making these serious allegations.
Kyle | 6:02 p.m. June 27, 2008
Agree with Adrienne and Jason. The LDS Church would not have to work as hard to
distance themselves from the FLDS if D&C 132 was abolished. As it stands
now, no one is really fooled by the weak protestations and finger pointing---all
while polygamy stands firmly rooted in current doctrine. Try as you might,
there is no middle ground for the LDS. You either believe polygamy is the will
of God or it isn't.
AJ | 6:06 p.m. June 27, 2008
@John Lambert: True about the media, especially in the USA. I was talking about
the average person on the street. When I told my mother I was talking to the
"Mormon" missionaries, her response included polygamy. I saw it
knocking on doors during my mission. I have had it talking to people about
Mormons outside my mission. If people have heard of the Mormons they normally
associate us with polygamy.
I would say for every 10 people I talk too, 1 knows that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not currently practice polygamy, 3 have never heard of us and 6 think we are polygamists. In the USA I am sure the mileage varies.
I would say for every 10 people I talk too, 1 knows that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not currently practice polygamy, 3 have never heard of us and 6 think we are polygamists. In the USA I am sure the mileage varies.
Why Not | 6:23 p.m. June 27, 2008
Why not change the name of the church and drop latter-day saints all together.
The church has changed other seemingly more important things. Let's clear
the air and have a name without LDS as a part of it.
Re-define us all you want | 8:57 p.m. June 27, 2008
Every anti LDS comment I have ever seen is just an effort to re-define the
church. Weak attempts to remake the church into their own image of it. If you
don't like the church or it's beliefs, just come up with a different
definition! Those of us who love the church just don't seem willing to
accept your definition of us! You see, we reserve the right to self define our
religion! Odd bunch aren't we, that we don't want to belong to a
church made over in some critics image of it?
Steve | 11:02 p.m. June 27, 2008
If you look at USPTO records, the LDS Church filed for two trademarks on
"Mormon" for different purposes on the same day. One was denied.
That was for "religious services." One is live. That is for
"educational services." Is it really a violation of the educational
services trademark for other religions to call themselves Mormons? Admittedly,
I don't know about the trademarks in other countries but they won't
apply to the US.
FLDS vs LDS | 11:30 p.m. June 27, 2008
Some people acts like they are an authority on the FLDS, but from some their
assumptions, you can see they aren't.
Here's a more realistic comparison of beliefs. This just might help the LDS to see how similar that are to the FLDS, since most of these are Mormon beliefs and not normal Christian beliefs.
-Believe in Word of Wisdom
(no alcohol, tobacco, etc..)------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Polygamy---------------------------FLDS yes, LDS no
-Polygamy in afterlife--------------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Priesthood for blacks--------------FLDS no, LDS yes
-Believe in Book of Mormon----------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Believe in Pearl of Great Price----FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Believe in Doctirine of Covenants--FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Practice Blood Atonement-----------FLDS no, LDS no
-Accept Joseph Smith as Prophet-----FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Accept Brigham Young as Prophet----FLDS yes, LDS yes
-One purpose of sex is to bond
husband and wife------------------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Families Are Forever---------------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Producing Children is the Only
Purpose of Marriage---------------FLDS no, LDS no
-What Jesus Christ says has more
authority than Jospeh Smith-------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-What Warren Jeffs says has more
authority than Monson-------------FLDS yes, LDS no
-Two year supply--------------------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Perform temple cerimonies----------FLDS yes, LDS yes
Here's a more realistic comparison of beliefs. This just might help the LDS to see how similar that are to the FLDS, since most of these are Mormon beliefs and not normal Christian beliefs.
-Believe in Word of Wisdom
(no alcohol, tobacco, etc..)------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Polygamy---------------------------FLDS yes, LDS no
-Polygamy in afterlife--------------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Priesthood for blacks--------------FLDS no, LDS yes
-Believe in Book of Mormon----------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Believe in Pearl of Great Price----FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Believe in Doctirine of Covenants--FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Practice Blood Atonement-----------FLDS no, LDS no
-Accept Joseph Smith as Prophet-----FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Accept Brigham Young as Prophet----FLDS yes, LDS yes
-One purpose of sex is to bond
husband and wife------------------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Families Are Forever---------------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Producing Children is the Only
Purpose of Marriage---------------FLDS no, LDS no
-What Jesus Christ says has more
authority than Jospeh Smith-------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-What Warren Jeffs says has more
authority than Monson-------------FLDS yes, LDS no
-Two year supply--------------------FLDS yes, LDS yes
-Perform temple cerimonies----------FLDS yes, LDS yes
FLDS vs LDS | 11:43 p.m. June 27, 2008
The above comment looked a lot better in the Add-your-comment box where the font
is a fixed width. Why did it add all the extra blank lines. It broke up the
beliefs and made them look like separate paragraphs when they aren't.
The grammatical errors are mine. Sorry, I should have proof read it. What I meant to say was:
"Some people act like they are an authority on the FLDS, but from some of their assumptions, you can see they aren't.
Here's a more realistic comparison of beliefs. This just might help the LDS see how similar they are to the FLDS, since most of these are Mormon beliefs and not normal Christian beliefs."
The grammatical errors are mine. Sorry, I should have proof read it. What I meant to say was:
"Some people act like they are an authority on the FLDS, but from some of their assumptions, you can see they aren't.
Here's a more realistic comparison of beliefs. This just might help the LDS see how similar they are to the FLDS, since most of these are Mormon beliefs and not normal Christian beliefs."
I'm Supposed to be Ashamed | 1:04 a.m. June 28, 2008
I'm a married LDS man and have polygymists all up and down my genealogy
charts. This, apparently, is supposed to fill my soul with shame.
You know what? It doesn't.
I'm not saying I "get" polygamy; who needs all that work just for sex? I'm just saying that I'm not going to hide from it.
For that matter, I'm still not convinced that historically at least, polygamy was entirely about sex (or power) anyway. Brigham himself said that if it was about sex then it would be a simple matter to just take mistresses, like powerful men have been doing since time immemorial. Instead, my Mormon ancestors acknowledged their kids, raised 'em and educated them, too.
What are the chances that Elliot Spitzer would have done the same had one of his liaisons led to a pregnancy?
So you feminists and 'real' Christians hammer away. I really don't care.
You know what? It doesn't.
I'm not saying I "get" polygamy; who needs all that work just for sex? I'm just saying that I'm not going to hide from it.
For that matter, I'm still not convinced that historically at least, polygamy was entirely about sex (or power) anyway. Brigham himself said that if it was about sex then it would be a simple matter to just take mistresses, like powerful men have been doing since time immemorial. Instead, my Mormon ancestors acknowledged their kids, raised 'em and educated them, too.
What are the chances that Elliot Spitzer would have done the same had one of his liaisons led to a pregnancy?
So you feminists and 'real' Christians hammer away. I really don't care.
Mormons_son Australia | 4:04 a.m. June 28, 2008
From what I have just read, one very very important thing is being looked over
or omitted ....Amused?...which is?
Since heeding the Prophet[s]and they are Gods spokeman, and being directed to no longer practice Polagmy.."Manifesto"..We have no issues with it....But to those that have, take your complaints[trivial as they are] to God, and say, HEY, you are not equal nor fair!..And wait for a reply!
Since heeding the Prophet[s]and they are Gods spokeman, and being directed to no longer practice Polagmy.."Manifesto"..We have no issues with it....But to those that have, take your complaints[trivial as they are] to God, and say, HEY, you are not equal nor fair!..And wait for a reply!
Elizaveta | 7:59 a.m. June 28, 2008
I was baptized 5, 5 years ago in Russia. I love LDS Church very much! I know
that it is only true Church in the world. I love this perfect organization which
helps people to find a real happiness.
Thanks to all who support LDS Church. I am glad to read this mild comments (even some of it was written by non members). Love, charity must be the strongest tool for Christians. I am trying to follow Jesus in this situation when I read comments of some (I hope few) citizens of my country �Kill all Mormons�/
Honestly, it is easier to understand Jesus and Apostles for me now. The level of Aggression and misunderstanding is so high now but the same situation was thousands years ago.
But I am sure that Heavenly Father will support us. He gives me love and protection. He can defend me and other members from this false information. At first I was frustrated but now (I testify about Church more than earlier) I can feel peace and love even in this unstable situation and aggressive reaction around me and Church. I don�t depend on this situation I depend on only Heavenly Father�s love.
Thanks to all who support LDS Church. I am glad to read this mild comments (even some of it was written by non members). Love, charity must be the strongest tool for Christians. I am trying to follow Jesus in this situation when I read comments of some (I hope few) citizens of my country �Kill all Mormons�/
Honestly, it is easier to understand Jesus and Apostles for me now. The level of Aggression and misunderstanding is so high now but the same situation was thousands years ago.
But I am sure that Heavenly Father will support us. He gives me love and protection. He can defend me and other members from this false information. At first I was frustrated but now (I testify about Church more than earlier) I can feel peace and love even in this unstable situation and aggressive reaction around me and Church. I don�t depend on this situation I depend on only Heavenly Father�s love.
Paul in MD | 8:30 a.m. June 28, 2008
To bblackmoor @ 4:49 6/27 - The LDS church didn't start calling its members
Mormons - those opposed to the church did. Like a lot of other nicknames out
there, it stuck, and like a lot of other nicknames, it isn't a correct
name. It makes it sound like we worship Mormon. We don't. We worship
Christ.
The LDS church isn't trying to get the FLDS church members to stop calling themselves "Mormons". The LDS church is simply trying to get news outlets to stop lumping the two churches together. They have been separate for almost 120 years.
Yes, the two share common historic roots, and many beliefs today. The same could be said for the Catholic church and most every Protestant religion, but you don't see the kind of confusion over Catholicism and the Lutheran church that you do over LDS and FLDS.
The LDS church isn't trying to get the FLDS church members to stop calling themselves "Mormons". The LDS church is simply trying to get news outlets to stop lumping the two churches together. They have been separate for almost 120 years.
Yes, the two share common historic roots, and many beliefs today. The same could be said for the Catholic church and most every Protestant religion, but you don't see the kind of confusion over Catholicism and the Lutheran church that you do over LDS and FLDS.
question | 8:44 a.m. June 28, 2008
Seems that the FLDS hold to the true teachings of the gospel.
Aren't they following the prophet, Jos. Smith? Who stated, firmly, (I'm referring to D&C, Sec.132) that the "new and everlasting covenant" of polygamy of plural wives is God's law and Mormons will abide His law or be "damned?" Was he a prophet of God or not? Which is truly from the Lord? A 'revelation' that begins "Verily, thus saith the Lord," or the "declaration" that says "To Whom It May Concern?" so that the US Gov. will not seize the property of the Church.
Congratulations, to the FLDS, who stand firm to the law of God, instead, of the law of governments.
Aren't they following the prophet, Jos. Smith? Who stated, firmly, (I'm referring to D&C, Sec.132) that the "new and everlasting covenant" of polygamy of plural wives is God's law and Mormons will abide His law or be "damned?" Was he a prophet of God or not? Which is truly from the Lord? A 'revelation' that begins "Verily, thus saith the Lord," or the "declaration" that says "To Whom It May Concern?" so that the US Gov. will not seize the property of the Church.
Congratulations, to the FLDS, who stand firm to the law of God, instead, of the law of governments.
Paul in MD | 8:49 a.m. June 28, 2008
to realitycheck @ 2:43 6/27 - There are those, about whom I think you are
primarily talking, who go through the motions and claim to practice their
religion, but don't really do any good works. There are others, however,
who pray and attend church, but also spend their time, talents and resources
helping others.
I don't believe God and/or organized religion are an impediment to improving the world. Rather, if properly adhered to, they can do much to increase the service rendered to and the lot of the less fortunate. It all depends on what is in the hearts of those who could serve.
And that is true regardless what religion they claim to practice.
I don't believe God and/or organized religion are an impediment to improving the world. Rather, if properly adhered to, they can do much to increase the service rendered to and the lot of the less fortunate. It all depends on what is in the hearts of those who could serve.
And that is true regardless what religion they claim to practice.
Paul in MD | 9:34 a.m. June 28, 2008
To Sheppy @ 5:05 6/27 - I don't know what press release or Web site
you've been looking at, but you've got the story wrong.
The FLDS church is getting roasted in the media, and the LDS church wants the press to stop making it look like these are the same church. For example, in Russia, they ran a story about the FLDS with a picture of the LDS Salt Lake temple. That is the kind of thing they are trying to curb.
If someone named "Shleppy" were in the news for something really bad, you'd want people to know that wasn't you, right? This is the same thing.
To clarify - "Mormon" is a nickname given to the early church by its persecutors, and it stuck. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is the official name, and the church is trying to clarify that as well. The FLDS church and its members can call themselves anything they want.
The FLDS church is getting roasted in the media, and the LDS church wants the press to stop making it look like these are the same church. For example, in Russia, they ran a story about the FLDS with a picture of the LDS Salt Lake temple. That is the kind of thing they are trying to curb.
If someone named "Shleppy" were in the news for something really bad, you'd want people to know that wasn't you, right? This is the same thing.
To clarify - "Mormon" is a nickname given to the early church by its persecutors, and it stuck. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is the official name, and the church is trying to clarify that as well. The FLDS church and its members can call themselves anything they want.
Paul in MD | 9:40 a.m. June 28, 2008
To Adrienne @ 5:15 pm 6/27 - Should we also get rid of the Old Testament
chapters where God commanded Solomon to take multiple wives and concubines? How
about where King David is told to do the same thing? Any others of God's
revelations you'd like us mere mortals to override and cut out?
Sorry, but the LDS church isn't going to start editing words we believe to have come from God through His prophet. That would be blasphemy.
As it says in Revelations, "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, ..." It is appropriate for God through His chosen prophets to add to, take away, or alter the scriptures. It is NOT for man to do.
Sorry, but the LDS church isn't going to start editing words we believe to have come from God through His prophet. That would be blasphemy.
As it says in Revelations, "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, ..." It is appropriate for God through His chosen prophets to add to, take away, or alter the scriptures. It is NOT for man to do.
Plato | 9:42 a.m. June 28, 2008
I'm somewhat confused. The LDS Church has a book of commandments called
the "Doctrine and Covenants." This allegedly is a cannonized book of
scripture. In regard to polygamy it is somewhat ambiguous.
Section 132 begins with "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you..." Verses 3 and 4 go on to say:
"Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."
At the end of the sections of revelations are two "Offical Declarations." These are obviously not represented as revelations and commandments because they both begin with, "To whom it may concern . . ."
The first declaration attempts to do away with Plural Marriage as official church policy. However, Plural Marriages are still performed in Temple ceremonies, to be effective in the afterlife.
Perhaps "Thus saith the Lord" trumps "To whom it may concern" after all . . .
Section 132 begins with "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you..." Verses 3 and 4 go on to say:
"Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."
At the end of the sections of revelations are two "Offical Declarations." These are obviously not represented as revelations and commandments because they both begin with, "To whom it may concern . . ."
The first declaration attempts to do away with Plural Marriage as official church policy. However, Plural Marriages are still performed in Temple ceremonies, to be effective in the afterlife.
Perhaps "Thus saith the Lord" trumps "To whom it may concern" after all . . .
Paul in MD | 9:46 a.m. June 28, 2008
To Kyle @ 6:02 6/27 - Again, since no one seems to be getting it, the LDS church
has not issued any statements (at least not in my 30+ years in the church)
saying plural marriage is contrary to the will of God. It HAS issued
statements, repeatedly since 1890, that according to the will of God the LDS
church is not currently practicing plural marriage.
This is a concept clearly taught in the Old Testament, by multiple prophets. It is appropriate when practiced WHEN AND BY WHOM GOD COMMANDS it.
This is a concept clearly taught in the Old Testament, by multiple prophets. It is appropriate when practiced WHEN AND BY WHOM GOD COMMANDS it.
Paul in MD | 9:47 a.m. June 28, 2008
To Why Not @ 6:23 pm 6/27 - Because that's what God told Joseph Smith to
call His church.
Of course, if you don't believe Joseph was a prophet, or that God still talks to His children today, then my argument won't mean much to you.
Of course, if you don't believe Joseph was a prophet, or that God still talks to His children today, then my argument won't mean much to you.
Tim | 12:31 p.m. June 28, 2008
That ever lasting covenant is very questionable. Kinda leaves womens feelings
out of it, but pumps up the mens egos for more wives.
Michael | 1:31 p.m. June 28, 2008
The LDS Church will not be able to separate itself from Polygamy because we
believe in Polygamy. The only reason we do not practice the New and Everlasting
Covenant today is because it is illegal..the whole law of the land thing.
However, polygamous marriages still take place in temples today (only, all of
the wives just are not alive). Time to own up and accept it and stop trying to
run away from our own doctine!!!
Paul in MD | 1:54 p.m. June 28, 2008
To Plato @ 9:42 - It is possible to make anything look bad, probably even the US
Constitution, if you select bits and pieces and read them out of context.
Yes, D&C 132 introduces the "new and everlasting covenant". This refers to sealing, or temple marriage. It does not specifically refer to plural marriage, although that is also introduced in D&C 132. If you read the entire 1890 Manifesto, it indicates that Wilford Woodruff, the prophet in 1890, received revelation that God wanted the LDS members to stop practicing plural marriage.
As for how the two documents start, that has to do with the target audience. D&C 132 was written to the members of the church; the Manifesto was written to be distributed much more widely.
Like I said, ignore context and semantics, and you can make anything look bad or contradictory.
As for the Manifesto and plural marriage, the Manifesto stopped the practice of LIVE plural marriage, or one man having multiple living wives. Nothing in the document, or in US law, precludes a second eternal marriage for a widower.
Yes, D&C 132 introduces the "new and everlasting covenant". This refers to sealing, or temple marriage. It does not specifically refer to plural marriage, although that is also introduced in D&C 132. If you read the entire 1890 Manifesto, it indicates that Wilford Woodruff, the prophet in 1890, received revelation that God wanted the LDS members to stop practicing plural marriage.
As for how the two documents start, that has to do with the target audience. D&C 132 was written to the members of the church; the Manifesto was written to be distributed much more widely.
Like I said, ignore context and semantics, and you can make anything look bad or contradictory.
As for the Manifesto and plural marriage, the Manifesto stopped the practice of LIVE plural marriage, or one man having multiple living wives. Nothing in the document, or in US law, precludes a second eternal marriage for a widower.
Paul in MD | 2:08 p.m. June 28, 2008
To Tim @ 12:31 - A lot has been said in this forum and elsewhere that would lead
to your conclusion, but much of it is fragmentary and incorrect.
Plural marriage is lambasted because it is said that these were mostly arranged marriages. Arranged marriages were not uncommon in the mid-1800's, plural or not. Plural marriages were not all arranged.
Women's feelings are definitely taken into account, when plural marriage was properly practiced. The first wife had to agree to her husband's marriage to each subsequent wife, and trying to coerce her into agreeing would bring HIM under condemnation.
This doesn't sound much like what the FLDS are reported to be practicing, does it? That's another reason the LDS church would like to avoid being painted with the same brush. Even if we were practicing plural marriage, it wouldn't happen the way it's being done by the FLDS.
Plural marriage is lambasted because it is said that these were mostly arranged marriages. Arranged marriages were not uncommon in the mid-1800's, plural or not. Plural marriages were not all arranged.
Women's feelings are definitely taken into account, when plural marriage was properly practiced. The first wife had to agree to her husband's marriage to each subsequent wife, and trying to coerce her into agreeing would bring HIM under condemnation.
This doesn't sound much like what the FLDS are reported to be practicing, does it? That's another reason the LDS church would like to avoid being painted with the same brush. Even if we were practicing plural marriage, it wouldn't happen the way it's being done by the FLDS.
Paul in MD | 2:11 p.m. June 28, 2008
To Michael @ 1:31 PM 6/28 - We do practice the New and Everlasting Covenant. If
you read D&C 132 more closely, you'll find that the first 25 - 30
verses describe this covenant, which is temple marriage.
Joseph is separately commanded to engage in plural marriage later in the section.
Joseph is separately commanded to engage in plural marriage later in the section.
zxcvbnm | 2:37 p.m. June 28, 2008
All yall LDS fellas sure are wasteing a lot of time explaining who you are not to people who really could care less who you are.
The FLDS has made it pretty clear that LDS are and virtually everyone else who isn't FLDS will fry in the eternal frying pan.
Who really cares about the specifics of your faith other than you and those that want to join your church. Ignore everyone else.
When it is all said and done God will decide on the amount of grease in the frying pan and we will probably be suprised by the souls being rolled in batter.
Two Peas in a Pod | 2:46 p.m. June 28, 2008
If there was not such a strong truth to these facts then no defense would be
needed and people would dismiss. Since such a rabid defense if needed I would
presume guilty as charged!
To all the LDS (or should I say anti-FLDS): You sure seem a little unsure of yourselves. Are you trying to convince the non-lds or yourselves?
To all the LDS (or should I say anti-FLDS): You sure seem a little unsure of yourselves. Are you trying to convince the non-lds or yourselves?
oo0O0oo | 5:21 p.m. June 28, 2008
Paul in MD | 9:46 a.m. June 28, 2008 said:
"To Kyle @ 6:02 6/27 - Again, since no one seems to be getting it, the LDS church has not issued any statements (at least not in my 30+ years in the church) saying plural marriage is contrary to the will of God."
Hey Paul, Do you watch Larry King? Ever see any LDS prophets talking about polygamy? Apparently not. Have you ever talked to a fundamentslist? Ever met a polygamist - either in MD or anywhere else? I am just wondering how you became such a self proclaimed expert on these things. Ever read the 1886 revelation to John Taylor? If so, how have you spun the story so that you can accept the mainstream church's stories about it?
"To Kyle @ 6:02 6/27 - Again, since no one seems to be getting it, the LDS church has not issued any statements (at least not in my 30+ years in the church) saying plural marriage is contrary to the will of God."
Hey Paul, Do you watch Larry King? Ever see any LDS prophets talking about polygamy? Apparently not. Have you ever talked to a fundamentslist? Ever met a polygamist - either in MD or anywhere else? I am just wondering how you became such a self proclaimed expert on these things. Ever read the 1886 revelation to John Taylor? If so, how have you spun the story so that you can accept the mainstream church's stories about it?
CPW | 6:43 p.m. June 28, 2008
The real difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saint Saint
and The FLDS Church is obedience to the laws of the land. When the law was made
against polygamy the LDS Church obeyed. The FLDS Church is not abiding by that
law. The law was not into affect when polygamy was first introduced. I suggest
that those who are set upon condemning the LDS Church should go back in American
history and LDS history and find out more facts. Polygamy was officiated so the
widows and fatherless would have someone to care for their temporal and
spiritual needs before and on the long trek to Utah. It was a loving Heavenly
Father who revealed it to Joseph Smith. He heard the cries of the widows and
fatherless. Joseph Smith knew he would be killed. He knew what was ahead for
church members. If you seek with your heart and mind open you will find out the
truth.
John Lambert | 8:32 p.m. June 28, 2008
To Sheppy,
Does the Catholic Church get to define what Catholic is?
I think you would have been right if you said "The Mormon Church has no more right to define what the word Mormon means than the Catholic Church has to define what the word Catholic means". Now that is a good comparison.
Does the Catholic Church get to define what Catholic is?
I think you would have been right if you said "The Mormon Church has no more right to define what the word Mormon means than the Catholic Church has to define what the word Catholic means". Now that is a good comparison.
John Lambert | 8:34 p.m. June 28, 2008
To Jason and Adrienne,
Have either of you ever actually read Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. I really doubt it. Polygamy is only a small part of the section. Most of the section is about the sealing pwoer, eternal marriage and the fact that only one man holds the keys.
Have either of you ever actually read Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. I really doubt it. Polygamy is only a small part of the section. Most of the section is about the sealing pwoer, eternal marriage and the fact that only one man holds the keys.
John Lambert | 8:42 p.m. June 28, 2008
To Sheppy,
The Adam-God theorum was never church doctrine. The most studied scholar on the teachings of Brigham Young thinks his statements can only be understood when we accept that there are two Adams, Adam the Father and Adam the Mortal being.
Was the United Order practiced in Nauvoo? Was it practiced in Utah before 1874? Is it a commandment or a method of implementing a commandment?
The answer to all three is in the negative. Anyway, the FLDS practiced the United Order wrong. It was supposed to be a system where the members held control of the goods, not a small elite.
Be that as it may, tithing was instituted under Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith never said anything that could even be twisted into the Adam God theorom.
Who is it who has the temples? Who is it who sends out missionaries.
Did Joseph Smith ever ask someone to "repent from afar".
I know that Thomas S. Monson is the prophet of God. He holds the same priesthood that Joseph Smith held. It has been passed down in an unbroken chain. Neither Warren Jeffs, nor any other polygamous group leader holds any priesthood.
The Adam-God theorum was never church doctrine. The most studied scholar on the teachings of Brigham Young thinks his statements can only be understood when we accept that there are two Adams, Adam the Father and Adam the Mortal being.
Was the United Order practiced in Nauvoo? Was it practiced in Utah before 1874? Is it a commandment or a method of implementing a commandment?
The answer to all three is in the negative. Anyway, the FLDS practiced the United Order wrong. It was supposed to be a system where the members held control of the goods, not a small elite.
Be that as it may, tithing was instituted under Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith never said anything that could even be twisted into the Adam God theorom.
Who is it who has the temples? Who is it who sends out missionaries.
Did Joseph Smith ever ask someone to "repent from afar".
I know that Thomas S. Monson is the prophet of God. He holds the same priesthood that Joseph Smith held. It has been passed down in an unbroken chain. Neither Warren Jeffs, nor any other polygamous group leader holds any priesthood.
John Lambert | 8:49 p.m. June 28, 2008
I hope more people read Shepp's comments. He is dead wrong about the
beliefs of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The United Order of the two only
correspond in name, and the United Order was dismantled the second time under
John Taylor. What does this tell us? The United Order is an outward expression
of an attempt to live the law of consecration. The law of consecration can only
be truly lived through internal dedication, and not outward expression.
The Traditionalist, Tridentine, still use Latin Catholics also feel they represent the true Catholic Church while the Pope has lead the rest of the Church astray. The analogy is inperfect, for the changes in the Catholic Church are greater and the Tridentine's holding to original doctrine is in general better than that of the FLDS. Joseph Musser denounced the exact procedure used to confer the priesthood under Heber J. Grant because this varried from the general proceedure under Joseph F. Smith. Yet the method under Grant was what had been done early on under such people as John Taylor and is the method given in the Book of Mormon.
The Traditionalist, Tridentine, still use Latin Catholics also feel they represent the true Catholic Church while the Pope has lead the rest of the Church astray. The analogy is inperfect, for the changes in the Catholic Church are greater and the Tridentine's holding to original doctrine is in general better than that of the FLDS. Joseph Musser denounced the exact procedure used to confer the priesthood under Heber J. Grant because this varried from the general proceedure under Joseph F. Smith. Yet the method under Grant was what had been done early on under such people as John Taylor and is the method given in the Book of Mormon.
John Lambert | 8:57 p.m. June 28, 2008
However the Doctrine and Covenants seems to endorse the method used by Joseph
F. Smith. Joseph F. Smith definantly taught that both methods were equally
valid.
Musser insisted that if all the words were not exactly right than the priesthood was not recieved. During the time Joseph F. Smith was in the First Presidency several letters were sent out in which it was clearly stated that even if the grammatical formation of an ordination was incorrect the priesthood was conferred.
The point is, that there are many differences between the "fundamentalists" and the "Mormons". At the core of it is the fact that the "Mormons" accept an open canon and do not claim that a living prophet has to follow all the procedures laid down by a dead prophet. The FLDS no more have the right to hijac the name "Mormon" than dissident Catholic groups have to hijac the name "Catholic". Only those in communion with the Pope are Catholic. A person never baptized in The Church of Jesus CHrist of Latter-day Saints is no more a member of "The Mormon Church" than someone never baptized in the Catholic Church is a Catholic.
Musser insisted that if all the words were not exactly right than the priesthood was not recieved. During the time Joseph F. Smith was in the First Presidency several letters were sent out in which it was clearly stated that even if the grammatical formation of an ordination was incorrect the priesthood was conferred.
The point is, that there are many differences between the "fundamentalists" and the "Mormons". At the core of it is the fact that the "Mormons" accept an open canon and do not claim that a living prophet has to follow all the procedures laid down by a dead prophet. The FLDS no more have the right to hijac the name "Mormon" than dissident Catholic groups have to hijac the name "Catholic". Only those in communion with the Pope are Catholic. A person never baptized in The Church of Jesus CHrist of Latter-day Saints is no more a member of "The Mormon Church" than someone never baptized in the Catholic Church is a Catholic.
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.
A package of videos and written statements of clarification were posted on the LDS Church's Web site Thursday in an effort to inform the media and the public of the differences between the LDS Church and the Fundamentalist LDS Church.
Related content
- Iran whistleblower poisoned 10:58 a.m.
- Stocks waver after jobs report 10:57 a.m.
- Robotic hand controlled by thoughts 10:51 a.m.
- Tribune Co. names new CEO 10:49 a.m.
- West High evacuated by bomb threat 10:43 a.m.
- FBI: Mitchell's answers calculated 10:42 a.m.
- Woods says he let family down 10:12 a.m.
- Recount in Atlanta mayoral race 9:54 a.m.
- Jurors defend verdict in Texas 9:52 a.m.
- New York charges don't stick to Gotti 9:51 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Witness: Mitchell wanted attention
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore
- Find joy in life, Bishop Burton says
- Utahns growing tired of Bennett
- BCS just keeps dirty laundry on spin
- Orem pair getting a rep for crime
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
908 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime483
- Hall reprimanded by MWC404
- Max Hall issues apology388
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal351
- Utes won't respond to Hall276
- BYU says Hall incident resolved240
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game165
- BYU is champion of the state143
- Religion in politics is tiresome142
As the TV cameras Tuesday night scanned the West Point audience during...
Latest comments
If the bottom feeders were better, the top 3 would have had one or two more...
["People who complain because they have to endure divergent opinions...
As a former member of a city council I can share some frustration with the...
Riiiiiiight. All the government needs is a simple majority to do whatever it...
I've read Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" and I'm real skeptical about everyone...
What is going to be a problem is the Young Men over the years that have gone...
If you think it is bad at Ute/BYU games you should go to any UCF game or...
Morgan Philpot. I found him to be a good listener and concerned about the...
When will you liberals understand that we have an obligation to do all we can...
Republicans, Democrats well I hate to write this but they are all the same,...
Advertisements
The LDS Church ordains black men to the priesthood and has several serving as Area Authority Seventies.
The LDS Church sends missionaries into several countries to preach the gospel. The FLDS do not send out missionaries to preach the gospel.
The LDS Church has a first presidency and a quorum of the twleve apostles. The FLDS have neither.
The LDS Church teaches that sex has the purpose of binding a man and a woman together in marriage as well as producing children. The FLDS teach that producing children is the only purpose of marriage.
The LDS Church requires abstinance from alchohol, tobacco, tea and coffee to enter the temple, the FLDS church does not.
The LDS Church has amassed a huge collection of family history data to advance the study of our ancestors and temple work. I am not aware of the FLDS doing anything like this.
There are more differences, but I think this is good for starting.