Despite the LDS Church's sophisticated PR machine, the debacle of the FLDS raid in Eldorado is bringing a new scrutiny on Mormonism that is anything but flattering. A recent article in The New York Times by Timothy Egan must have the boys in the tall building next to the Temple near apoplexy:What you see in Texas — in small part — is a look back at some of the behavior of Mormonism’s founding fathers.When Mitt Romney, in his December speech about his religion, said, “My faith is the faith of my fathers — I will be true to them and to my beliefs,” he was taking on a load of historical baggage.
His faith was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith Jr., an itinerant treasure-seeker from upstate New York who used a set of magic glasses to translate a lost scripture from God. ...
It would have been just another Christian faith had not Smith let his libido lead him into trouble. Before he died at the hands of a mob, he married at least 33 women and girls; the youngest was 14, and was told she had to become Smith’s bedmate or risk eternal damnation.
Smith was fortunate to find a religious cover for his desire. His polygamy “revelation” was put into The Doctrine and Covenants, one of three sacred texts of Mormonism. It’s still there – the word of God. And that’s why, to the people in the compound at Eldorado, the real heretics are in Salt Lake City.
Egan says despite the LDS Church's rejection of polygamy, many mainstream Mormons feel a connection with the Texas polygamists' defiance. He quotes Guy Murray, a Mormon lawyer and blogger:Back then, we were the ones in the compound.
17 Comments:
I read the Times' editorial yesterday morning. It was dead on. I also noted how the Mormon church released a PR thing on how great the 2002 Winter Olympics was for the church and Utah. Also, I noted that the church was pounding its chest about how great BYU is, and the thing about BYU Idaho having de-criminalized the town.
Man, that is some Superchurch!
The point remains: polygamy as religion is a legacy of what we know as Mormonism. J. Smith and B. Young were responsible for bringing that ugly "religion" into Utah and other western states. The wealthy Utah church can't hide behind "we denounced polygamy a hundred years ago therefore it doesn't involve us." Nonsense and crap.
The wealthy church refuses, of course, to accept its responsibilities by changing its written words that continue to promote polygamy (a revelation or whatever else it takes), and denounce publicly and loudly, over and over, that polygamy on this planet and any other is an afront to all humans and to God and any other creatures existing on those various planets occupied by former Mormons-turned god.
The wealthy Utah church should then plead with the wayward polygamists to come home and reject the polygamy nonsense, get their heads on straight, etc., etc.
God, this polygamy/Mormon nonsense get old, doesn't it?
As a non-Mormon, I am amazed that the LDS does not stand up for their wayward brothers. Every family has their crazy uncles and loony aunts, but for God's sake they are blood kin family. It breaks my heart that CPS can rip a nursing baby from it's mother without the LDS standing up and flexing a little muscle. Are you so afraid of what the neighbors will think? If so, your church is built on the shifting sands of political correctness. If not, I'll gladly stand with you against the beast which our government has become. Richard Simpson
As it's repeatedly been pointed out in the past, the only reason that the Latter Day Saints do NOT still now practice plural marriage is because, since that practice is illegal in the United States, that practice was keeping Utah from statehood! So, it appears that the only basic difference between LDS and FLDS is that the LDS obey the law against polygamy and the FLDS do not. It's OBVIOUS why the LDS now "have their head in the sand" and refuse to acknowledge that they and the FLDS are connected! It's because the LDS folk now won't face the music that they have been part of what the FLDS are today! Since they are actively out trying to convert non-mormons to mormonism, they realize that their embarrassment of the history of their church would turn a whole lot of folks off against their church and make it difficult or even impossible to realize their goal of snagging new members and keeping existing members from leaving the fold!
When it comes to the LDS Church in general, and his characterization of me, in particular, Mr. Egan has no clue what he is talking about. My response to Mr. Egan, see also here:
Mr. Egan,
You quote me in a mostly anti-Mormon tirade, using mostly anti-Mormon sources and arguments. When I said back then “we” were in the compounds, I had reference to religious persecution of the United States Government against the main stream Mormon Church. The government confiscated property, imprisoned individuals, disenfranchised citizens–all for religious beliefs and practice.
There is no question that the current FLDS disaster in Texas is further religious persecution in the sense that Texas government officials have chosen to crack down on the FLDS community because of their peculiar religious beliefs. This was true when they changed their marriage age from 14 to 16 in 2005, specifically in response to the FLDS move to Texas. It is true today because they singled out this particular community with essentially no evidence to support the breadth and depth of their actions in this raid.
I have no problem prosecuting anyone for child abuse, sexual abuse or any other criminal law violation. So, don’t attempt to lump me in with the rest of your anti-Mormon diatribe.
Fawn Brodie is old news, and was never Joseph Smith’s biographer. The most current biography, which runs circles around Brodie’s is Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling. Read it–you might actually learn something.
Banner of Heaven is no authority on polygamy current or historical.
I am appalled by Texas’ blatant violation of its own laws, and those rights protected under the United States Constitution. If you had bothered to read any of my blog:
messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com
you would have known that to be true. Rather you take one quote and try to tailor it to your anti-Mormon slant here.
Members of religious (and even non-religious) communities of all stripes, even those which are the least popular amongst us are entitled to the basic due process and equal protection afforded under the Constitution–whether you like it or not. If I have time, I will respond further on my blog.
Regards,
Guy Murray
— Posted by Guy Murray
For a better and more biting response to Egan, see Seth R.'s response here.
Finally, I am licensed as a lawyer by the State Bar of California, which actually makes me a California lawyer, who just happens to be a Mormon. And, frankly, I'm damn proud of it.
Excuse me?
What proof do you have that Joseph Smith had 33 wives before he died? Are you LDS? Is this allegation pulled out of thin air, or did it come from the Born Again Anti-Mormon fanatics?
By the way, polygamy was NOT banned so that Utah can become a state. Just read the three addresses by President Willford Woodruff following Official Declaration 1, and you would find out WHY!
These descendants of apostates are in trouble spiritually because President Woodruff's words are Gospel, and even if President John Taylor ever in his right mind gave four men the authority to practice polygamy, it was countermanded by Official Declaration 1. It's going to take thousands of Texas psychologists to unbrainwash the women and children of these apostate descendants.
My ancestors practiced plural marriage because they believed God wanted them to do so. Neither I nor the LDS have any reason to denounce them (as John suggests) or apologize for their behavior.
Later my ancestors gave up the practice of plural marriage, again because they believed God wanted them to do so. Neither I nor the LDS church have any reason to apologize for that.
The FLDS and other such groups have chosen to continue the practice of polygamy. No doubt they are doing what they believe God wants. However, in so doing, they have separated themselves from the LDS church. They do not consider themselves part of our church; nor do we consider ourselves part of theirs. We owe no one an apology or explanation for their behavior.
Dear Anonymous said:
God sure changes his mind a lot, doesn't he. Sorta makes him out to be non-perfect.
What a scam, your "church"!
Have you noticed the photo gallery in the Salt Lake Tribune entitled "Empty Rooms"? http://www.tribphoto.com/galleryPhotos.asp?GID=FLDS_0420&sort=Gallery
You'll notice that while the rooms might be empty of children, they are not empty of images of Warren Jeffs! If there is any evidence that would suggest that these children are better off away from their parents, it's those photos!
John,
In your first post, you presumed to say what the LDS Church should do about its polygamist past, including concocting a revelation to denounce the practice as "an affront to all humans and God and any other creatures."
But of course such a statement would be nonsense. Many good people throughout history (including my Mormon ancesters) have practiced some form of polygamy; they did not consider it an affront to themselves.
Obviously you disagree with them; however, you have offered no reason to accept your judgment as superior to theirs.
Nor have you offered any reason to believe that God cannot command and revoke as he sees fit. That is the point of continuing revelation: God tells what we need to know in the here and now.
If you object to the current marital practices of FLDS, take it up with them. (I doubt they will listen to you any more than they listen to us.)
We Mormons owe you no apologies for plural marriage.
Who is the anonymous dickhead that said that "We Mormons owe you no apologies for plural marriage."
Which Mormons? the "Mormons" of Colorado City; or the "Mormons" of Salt Lake City. The latter lie to the public and are lied to by their leaders; the former are child molesters. Perhaps you ought to merely apologize to yourself.
Korihor,
If you go back and read my previous post slowly and carefully, you will see that the Mormons I refer to are the members of the LDS church.
In case you are still confused about the LDS and FLDS, let me point out that they are separate groups. The FLDS do not consider themselves part of the LDS church, and we do not consider ourselves part of the FLDS church. We have little or no influence over them; they have little or no influence over us. Each group is responsible for its own behavior.
Just to be clear: We LDS Mormons owe no apologies to anyone for plural marriage. None whatsoever.
Mormon leaders from Joseph Smith to Wilford Woodruff condoned polygamy as a practice that was necessary for salvation. Your mainline "church" continues to practice polygamy in its temples, although a man must have only one wife living; and your "church" still has section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants as canon scripture.
So, when your "leaders" talk about having "nothing whatever to do with polygamy" it is a lie. They want to distance themselves from the FLDS cult, but don't want to distance themselves from polygamy.
It's the same old thing in the LDS church: lie for the Lord to the Gentiles, but tell the awful truth every Sunday
Korihor,
Mormon leaders from Joseph Smith to Thomas S. Monson have taught that obedience to God is necessary to salvation. It is a simple concept —I am surprised you have such difficulty grasping it.
God may command that his people practice plural marriage, and he may command that they cease the practice. In either case, it is faith and obedience that count, not polygamy.
Your accusation that the LDS church continues to practice polygamy is bizarre. Polygamy is defined as marriage to two or more spouses at a time. In the eyes of the law, marriage does not continue after death.
Therefore, someone who remarries after the death of a spouse is not committing bigamy or polygamy.
What you really are saying (I think) is that the LDS church continues to believe in the principle of eternal marriage, and that this is tantamount to a belief in polygamy. But belief in polygamy is not the same as the practice of polygamy. Fortunately, there is no law against one's beliefs.
Unfortunately, it's the same old thing with anti-Momons: misrepresent the Church's teaching and practices, then accuse others of lying when they correct your misstatements.
Anon:
With such convoluted musings, you must be a GA: You've got lying for the Lord down pat!
As far as your comment on obedience and faith is concerned: I don't believe in salvation so I certainly don't believe in blind religious obedience. From your comment, it would seem that polygamy is not an end of itself, but a means to an end; that is to say, a test of the obedience of the Saints?
Are you telling me that if the prophet of your church suddenly said that female genital mutilation was necessary for the salvation of women, you'd condone this practice?
Is it this same obedience that allowed Joseph Smith to have a fourteen year old bride?
Such obedience to authority is deadly. It's far more dangerous than any drug.
Korihor:
It seems we can agree on at least one thing: Neither of us believes in blind obedience to authority.
One of the many strengths of Mormonism is that its adherents are not expected to rely on the word of any man, living or dead, no matter his position. We know that mortal men are fallible and weak; therefore, each member is encouraged to investigate, think things out, and ask God what is right.
As I wrote before, my ancestors practiced plural marriage because they believed it to be God's commandment to them. They were not forced to do so; they did not have to accept the word of the president of the church; they were free to ask God and then choose for themselves.
I think that one purpose of plural marriage in its day was to test the obedience of the Saints. I also think there were other reasons. However, since the practice has been discontinued, I spend little time worrying about what those other reasons may have been.
As to your hypothetical: If and when the prophet comes out in favor of female genital mutilation, get back to me. If I were a betting man, I would be willing to wager a large sum that such an announcement is not forthcoming.
Anon: Yet again, I have to find your words confusing and duplicitous: You aver that polygamy was practiced "to test the obedience of the Saints"; but section 132 of your church's "Doctrine and Covenants" sets out the justifications of and penalties for rejecting polygamy. It would seem pretty difficult to me if I were a Mormon that I had only two choices: taking on multiple wives or damnation.
I find it amazing that you can ditinguish that those practicing polygamy to day are damned, yet those who practiced it prior to 1890 are not.
Like yourself, my ancestors practiced polygamy; I'm quite sure that they felt compelled to do so. If you truly believed in the letter of D&C 132, you'd have more than one wife, too.
And I don't think I have to point out to you that you danced around the issue --hypothetical though it may be-- of female genital mutilation. From what I gather, your god is into testing your faith and the faith of all Mormons. The practice of genital mutilation would be a pretty big test, don't you think? I'm guessing that you'd have to go along with it?
If you find my words confusing, why are you so quick to accuse me of duplicity? A reasonable person of good will would try to clear up the confusion before assuming bad faith.
In my previous post, I explicitly stated that one purpose of plural marriage was to test the obedience of the Saints. In a sense, it can be said that all commandments, regardless of their other purposes, are tests of faith.
I also think there were other good reasons for plural marriage. However, I consider the question moot, since we do not practice plural marriage today.
Not once in any of my posts have I said that someone would be damned for practicing (or refraining from practicing) polygamy, whether before 1890 or since. I do not pretend to know who will be damned.
You mentioned D&C 132. I accept that section of the Doctrine and Covenants. I also accept D&C 56:4 (". . . I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good. . . ."), Official Declaration-1 (The "Manifesto"), and subsequent actions by the leaders of the church suspending the practice of plural marriage.
Your hypothetical about female genital mutilation was both farfetched and insulting. Answering such questions is a sucker's game.
Post a Comment
<< Home