Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[MelanieAnne]

I think you have two contradicting statements here in the same paragraph. On the one hand you say LDS are not embarrassed about polygamy. On the other hand you say LDS want to be considered normal. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Try having a discussion with an LDS person about their history of polygamy and the teaching that still exists on the subject within their “scriptures.” Remember, they have never refuted polygamy. It has only been “suspended.” It’s embarrassing for them to talk about–you’ll see them get uncomfortable real fast.

I actually HAVE had these conversations already, some of them recently. That is where the statements come from. They may be contradictory to you, but not to those who I have talked to.

Perhaps I was not clear. I don’t think they are embarrassed about polygamy. But uncomfortable? Yes, they don’t want to be confused with some wacko cult. They are uncomfortable with THAT. They want to be considered “normal”, and the whole polygamy is something they acknowledge, but figure they will deal with in some far distant future. To me, it appears they are uncomfortable with the cult, not polygamy.

True. One thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is that LDS still practice a form of polygamy today. Men can be sealed to more than one woman in the temple for eternity. For example, if a man’s wife dies and he marries again, he can also be sealed to his new wife, thus giving him two wives in heaven. The same is not true for women. If a woman is widowed and marries again, she cannot be sealed to her new husband, because she can only ever be sealed to one man, unless she had a temple divorce breaking her eternal marriage from the first husband. Weird, huh? I would like to see that come out in the media.

Actually you are not entirely correct. There is one exception to that and it involves doing temple work for the dead. A woman who is deceased, and who has been married more than once during her lifetime, and both husbands are now deceased, can be sealed to both her husbands. I was told this by someone who has a high enough position to know this for sure. This is the one exception for women. But this is something “sorted out by the Lord” at some future time, I don’t think both sealings last for eternity (i.e., perhaps the Lord breaks one of them when He “sorts it out”?) but I never asked about that.

But your overall point is correct. Polygamy is practiced, in some narrow sense, today. I was more focusing on actual living practice of polygamy, which the regular LDS church forbids.

 

[Chuck_H]

If a fourteen year old girl goes to her high school counselor in a government (public) school and says she is pregnant, the school will help her get an abortion without her parent’s consent or knowledge. Where is the outrage?

If the same girl goes to a Planned Parenthood location they will give her free birth control without her parent’s consent or knowledge. Where is the outrage?

If Planned Parenthood becomes aware that she has been having sex with a fifty year old man they cover it up. Where is the outrage?

There is one FLDS clan of nutcases in TX where it is alleged that abuse of young women takes place, but no criminal charges have been filed or proven. There is a Planned Parenthood clinic and high school in every town in the country where the above is proven by the fact that it is the declared policies of these institutions.

Are we choking on gnats and swallowing camels?

An extremely fair assessment.

 

[Chuck_H]

(removed for brevity)

Actually you are not entirely correct. There is one exception to that and it involves doing temple work for the dead. A woman who is deceased, and who has been married more than once during her lifetime, and both husbands are now deceased, can be sealed to both her husbands. I was told this by someone who has a high enough position to know this for sure. This is the one exception for women. But this is something “sorted out by the Lord” at some future time, I don’t think both sealings last for eternity (i.e., perhaps the Lord breaks one of them when He “sorts it out”?) but I never asked about that.

But your overall point is correct. Polygamy is practiced, in some narrow sense, today. I was more focusing on actual living practice of polygamy, which the regular LDS church forbids.

I wonder how they square that with Jesus’ teaching to the pharisees about the woman who was married seven times? He makes it quite clear there is no marriage in heaven. They do seem to make a big deal about how they are “Christian”.

No argument with your post, you just got me thinking.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Oh my, now that’s very insulting. Who made you the judge and jury of everything that is Christian and everything that is not? You must have appointed yourself! That’s a game everyone can play and you’re only inviting other people to do the same as you are doing. You reap what you sow. Now where did I think up that quaint old saying?

No one made me judge and jury of anything, nor did I claim to be. Notice, you are the one making things up. However, Mormons are not regarded as Christians by many other Christian faiths. I’m sure that’s not news for you.

Hate ***is ***a pretty strong word but then again hanging a millstone around somebody’s neck and letting them drown is subject to criminal prosecution.

Maybe so. I suspect if Jesus Christ ever did it, He’d do OK.

An apologist? You must be joking! I don’t think you’ve understood anything I’ve said. I am trying to be fair, not start a lynch mob.

I call 'em like I see 'em coach.

 

[MelanieAnne]

If a fourteen year old girl goes to her high school counselor in a government (public) school and says she is pregnant, the school will help her get an abortion without her parent’s consent or knowledge. Where is the outrage?

If the same girl goes to a Planned Parenthood location they will give her free birth control without her parent’s consent or knowledge. Where is the outrage?

If Planned Parenthood becomes aware that she has been having sex with a fifty year old man they cover it up. Where is the outrage?

There is one FLDS clan of nutcases in TX where it is alleged that abuse of young women takes place, but no criminal charges have been filed or proven. There is a Planned Parenthood clinic and high school in every town in the country where the above is proven by the fact that it is the declared policies of these institutions.

Are we choking on gnats and swallowing camels?

I don’t know about your parish, but we say the Rosary on a regular basis at our local planned parenthood clinic. We also routinely seek to have parental notification laws put in place ~ either by our legislators or by petitions of the citizenry, which in our state can have the force of law.

You are setting up a very troubling moral equivalence here ~ equating the misguided, misinformed choices of a teenager with the cynical manipulation and RAPE of such a child by an adult male, one that is acting in complete conformance with his church’s doctrine.

It’s unfortunate if someone cannot see the difference.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I wonder how they square that with Jesus’ teaching to the pharisees about the woman who was married seven times? He makes it quite clear there is no marriage in heaven. They do seem to make a big deal about how they are “Christian”.

No argument with your post, you just got me thinking.

As I understood it, in that particular circumstance, only one sealing would ultimately be functional, and the Lord would decide which one.

As for “there is no marriage in heaven” ~ Obviously Mormons ignore that. They are sealed for “time and eternity” and if they are worthy they can progress to becoming Gods and Goddesses of their own worlds, which will be populated with their own spirit children ~ which I guess is why the men need all those wives to the new world can be populated quickly!

 

[rmcmullan]

One of the biggest problems the FLDS face, individually and as a group, is just plain old intolerance. It’s what drove them out of mainline society and what keeps them trapped there. Because of it, the women will have no sympathetic ear, instead only intolerant ones who will demand them that they abandon the faith they hold dear. It prevents them from any moderating influences. Over time, this has only made their society and their practise of polygamy increasing distorted. It’s a vicious cycle of intolerance that only feeds on itself.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Similar to the old maxim of “hating the sin, not the sinner”, one of our priests recently spoke about tolerance.

Tolerance is for people. We tolerate them. We are not called upon to tolerate sinful practices. Some people confuse refusal to tolerate sin with intolerance of persons committing the sin. This is misguided.

 

[J_C]

One of the biggest problems the FLDS face, individually and as a group, is just plain old intolerance. It’s what drove them out of mainline society and what keeps them trapped there. Because of it, the women will have no sympathetic ear, instead only intolerant ones who will demand them that they abandon the faith they hold dear. It prevents them from any moderating influences. Over time, this has only made their society and their practise of polygamy increasing distorted. It’s a vicious cycle of intolerance that only feeds on itself.

in my view the problem with your assessment, rmcmullan, is that the flsd didn’t come out of mainline society. it came out of LDs society around the turn of the 20th century. it was the abandonment of plural marriage by the ldS in Utah (so they could procure statehood, which they had been working on for a half century by then) that pushed the flds away. at least that is my understanding from some reading on the subjecct. Everything else I agree with.

 

[MelanieAnne]

JC, there were also those who broke from the group led by Brigham Young to Utah. This group did not follow him there, but remained. I believe this is the group that calls themselves the RLDS and if I remember correctly they are the first break-away group. Anyway, this group would tell you that the regular LDS (the sect that more people are familiar with) is incorrect. I don’t know if they practice(d) polygamy or not, but it’s likely they did so at least in the past, if not now.

In any event, all such practices are against the Word of God.

 

[BartBurk]

JC, there were also those who broke from the group led by Brigham Young to Utah. This group did not follow him there, but remained. I believe this is the group that calls themselves the RLDS and if I remember correctly they are the first break-away group. Anyway, this group would tell you that the regular LDS (the sect that more people are familiar with) is incorrect. I don’t know if they practice(d) polygamy or not, but it’s likely they did so at least in the past, if not now.

In any event, all such practices are against the Word of God.

The RLDS is now called the Community of Christ. They never practiced polygamy and were in fact formed in some respects as a reaction against it. Joseph Smith III, Joseph Smith’s son, was the leader of that group. He claimed Joseph Smith never taught that polygamy was correct. An interesting web site on that can be found here:

restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

The Community of Christ now states it does not know what Joseph’s involvement was with polygamy. There are many Community of Christ members who have split from that group. Here is the Community of Christ version of its own history with a statement on polygamy near the end of the page:

cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp

The conservative RLDS people can be found here:

centerplace.org/

 

[majick275]

The RLDS (now CoC) split at the same time as a number of others who also disagreed with Brigham Young’s leadership. The RLDS specifically disapproved of polygamy and claimed it was NOT revealed by God but was BY’s doing. some of the other breakaways shared the opinion that polygamy was wrong but realized that JS had started it and claimed he was a “fallen prophet”. (whitmer, rigdon, etc.)others were good with polygamy but not BY (strang for example)
The FLDS and other “mormon corridor” polygamous groups split after the manifesto. they believed in the LDS church up until then and felt that WW betrayed the church and all who accepted the manifesto apostatized leaving them with the “true” church. each group seems to have it’s own story of how the leadership “keys” came to them but all usually start in the same place with John Taylor.

 

[rmcmullan]

in my view the problem with your assessment, rmcmullan, is that the flsd didn’t come out of mainline society. it came out of LDs society around the turn of the 20th century. it was the abandonment of plural marriage by the ldS in Utah (so they could procure statehood, which they had been working on for a half century by then) that pushed the flds away. at least that is my understanding from some reading on the subjecct. Everything else I agree with.

Well okay but why was LDS society located in the mountains of Utah in the first place? Intolerance. Religious persecution. But really, I don’t care about any of this history as interesting as it might be. Except to note that the FLDS suffered structurally from the intolerance (of polygamy) they were subjected to. It bred a distrust of outsiders and who can blame them for that? They had a mind to do what they thought was right regardless of what others thought. And it led them to be increasingly isolated and odd. Maybe odd is putting it too mildly.

Regular LDS pretty much operate in mainline society but this mercy was something the FLDS did not receive.

 

[BartBurk]

Regular LDS pretty much operate in mainline society but this mercy was something the FLDS did not receive.

Why should they receive any mercy? Polygamy is unworkable in any modern society. It depends upon a continuing surplus of young females to make it work. Since males and females are born equally, the result is there will always be a surplus of young men, not young women, when polygamy is practiced. The result is the “lost boys” issue which is manifested in Utah and Arizona where uneducated boys are cast out of their society onto the streets because the older men do not want them competing for the females. There simply is not a just way for a polygamous society to operate. It needs to be banned and those who participate in it need to be prosecuted. If this is the only way that can happen, bravo Texas!

 

[MelanieAnne]

Gosh, wasn’t it even Brigham Young himself who said an unmarried male at some point in his twenties is a menace to society or something like that? Why create the problem on purpose?

Anyway, it’s AGAINST the WORD of God.

 

[Jerusha]

Disagreed, mcmullin. There were other plural marriage religious communes in the early 1800’s, but they collapsed. The most notable of these was the Oneida Commune, which lasted from 1848 to 1878. There was no community outrage, because they did not participate in other unacceptable behaviors. Relationships were freely chosen.

In contrast, with the Mormons at Nauvoo, relationships were coreced, Danites were active, they made life difficult for “gentiles” ,and there was theft of land and other possessions (consecrated, because “God told them to”).

LDS is situated in the mountains of Utah, because in a deal with BY, they agreed to leave the country in order to avoid prosecution (you use persecution, whatever). Utah was later annexed from Mexico.

Statehood was contingent upon giving up polygamy, because everyone had been brainwashed into believing that that was the only issue.

I agree with the rest of your statement, however.

 

[majick275]

Well okay but why was LDS society located in the mountains of Utah in the first place? Intolerance. Religious persecution. But really, I don’t care about any of this history as interesting as it might be. Except to note that the FLDS suffered structurally from the intolerance (of polygamy) they were subjected to. It bred a distrust of outsiders and who can blame them for that? They had a mind to do what they thought was right regardless of what others thought. And it led them to be increasingly isolated and odd. Maybe odd is putting it too mildly.

Regular LDS pretty much operate in mainline society but this mercy was something the FLDS did not receive.

well let’s look a little deeper into this. I don’t accept that the mormons went to utah because of intolerance. first of all, what was not being “tolerated” ? look at nauvoo and you will see a group applying themselves to temporal rule as well as spiritual and thus those who disagreed with the PRACTICES ( not just “beliefs”) of the mormons feared having these practices imposed on a society in which they lived. they didn’t want to suffer “second hand smoke” from mormon practices.

there is also the temporal authority issue itself. BY wanted (like JS) to lead these people on every level. if you read his sermons you will see he advised them on everything from what to grow in the fields to what to serve their children for breakfast in addition to religious counsel. In order to establish this type of theocracy they needed to be off somewhere on their own. Thus Utah. many mormon groups setup in a variety of places. the success of the “brighamites” was in being able to establish such a theocracy that fostered multiple generations of loyal, dependent followers with little experience outside of mormonism and a thorough cultural inoculation against “gentile” beliefs. had it not been for BY success in creating such a society and thus producing lifelong cultural mormons then I think the LDS church would have faded away like many others of that time and place.

 

[why_me]

Well okay but why was LDS society located in the mountains of Utah in the first place? Intolerance. Religious persecution. But really, I don’t care about any of this history as interesting as it might be. Except to note that the FLDS suffered structurally from the intolerance (of polygamy) they were subjected to. It bred a distrust of outsiders and who can blame them for that? They had a mind to do what they thought was right regardless of what others thought. And it led them to be increasingly isolated and odd. Maybe odd is putting it too mildly.

Regular LDS pretty much operate in mainline society but this mercy was something the FLDS did not receive.

You are correct when you say that mormons went west because of persecution. From the beginning of the lds church, the early lds members were persecuted by local communities. The move to Utah was to finally separate the lds community from the bigotry and abuse that local communities showed the lds community. In Utah, the lds prospered and local communities thrived. Finally after years of persecution they were free to worship god as they saw fit.

The flds suffered from lack of different blood. Most come from families that have intermarried time after time. They have distinct features that shows a lack of gene mixture. I cannot say that the sect originated after polygamy was abolished. I think that it came into play much later.

 

[LaMar]

The move to Utah was to finally separate the lds community from the bigotry and abuse that local communities showed the lds community.

How did the Mormons treat the people who had already settled the areas they chose to move to?

 

[why_me]

How did the Mormons treat the people who had already settled the areas they chose to move to?

I don’t know, you tell me. However, we need to remember that a persecuted people are usually a people that have been through very traumatic experiences. And the mormons are no different in this respect as they began to settle Utah.

Between the trek westward and being abused by local populations, the lds at that time must have been just a little ‘sick’ in the mind by the time they arrived in Utah. Are they to blame for whatever may have happened when they settled Utah?