What’s in a name?

roseBack in April when Texas authorities seized children from a ranch owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we discussed how well the media distinguished between them and the much larger Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As far as media coverage went, we thought reporters handled the distinction pretty well. We definitely took issue with how well they retained their objectivity with the story.

But the LDS church commissioned a survey of 1,000 Americans and found that 36 percent thought the Texas compound was part of the LDS Church or the “Mormon Church” based in Salt Lake City. According to the survey, six percent said the churches were partly related, 29 percent said the groups were not connected at all, and 29 percent weren’t sure.

So the LDS decided to do a big public relations campaign and enlist religion reporters help in clarifying the distinction. Whereas Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune ran a rather brief story, the Associated Press’ Eric Gorski used the campaign as a hook to explore the issue in greater depth:

As authorities have investigated a polygamist sect in Texas, Mormon church leaders in Salt Lake City have largely stayed on the sidelines, weighing a response.

Church officials knew the sect’s similar name and practice of polygamy — part of Mormon church life until it was banned more than a century ago — would cause people to confuse the two.

Now the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, better known as the Mormon church, is starting a public relations campaign that seeks a delicate balance: distinguishing itself from a small, separate group that claims some of the same history while not denigrating someone else’s beliefs.

It’s a sensitive issue for the Mormon church, which was persecuted in its early years. The initiative begun Thursday also details how it considers its 19th century practice of polygamy different from present-day practitioners like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

“People have the right to worship as they choose, and we aren’t interested in attacking someone else’s beliefs,” LDS church apostle Quentin Cook said in a statement. “At the same time, we have an obligation to define ourselves rather than be defined by events and incidents that have nothing to do with us.”

“Mormons,” he said, “have nothing whatsoever to do with this polygamous sect in Texas.”

I love the way that Gorski really makes the most out of each word. There is rarely an unnecessary clause in his prose. The middle of the story gives a ton of specifics — the LDS took no stance on the April raid of the FLDS compound in Texas or subsequent battles. Gorski explains why the campaign was launched and how it centers around videos on the LDS web site that aim to demonstrate that church members are like anyone else in the community.

He also explains how the church aims to explain its former practice of polygamy relative to the FLDS’ current practice of polygamy. He gives the specifics of the public relations campaign, such as an article that emphasizes that most polygamous marriages involved just two wives and that Mormon women in the 19th century could choose whether to marry and could leave their polygamous marriages. He notes a few things that were left out, such as the fact that church founder Joseph Smith had at least 28 wives, some as young as 14 and that his successor Brigham Young married at least 20 women. But he gets a response from LDS Apostle Cook about why comparisons of FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs to the early Mormon church prophets are unfair. There’s no “gotcha” in the reporting.

In addition to another religious scholar, Gorski speaks with historian Jan Shipps, who is a highly-regarded non-Mormon scholar of the Latter Day Saint movement:
vaseroses

Although the Mormon church distances itself from polygamist groups like the FLDS, the groups are not unrelated, said Jan Shipps, a historian who specializes in Mormonism. They share common roots, call themselves Mormon and recognize Joseph Smith as a prophet, she said.

“You can see why the (LDS) church is doing its best to draw a line between the two,” she said. “The problem is that by drawing the line, they don’t recognize the shared history both accept.”

Shipps said it’s accurate to call sects like the FLDS “fundamentalist Mormons” because she, and other scholars, considers Mormonism a new religious tradition with several expressions.

The LDS church, which considers itself Christian, sees it differently.

As part of the new initiative to set itself apart from polygamist groups, the church’s general counsel, Lance Wickman, wrote a letter to media executives this week urging sensitivity in coverage and asking that the term “fundamentalist Mormon” not be used.

“Decades ago, the founders of that sect rejected the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were excommunicated,” he wrote, “and then started their own religion.”

I love how straightforward Gorski is. He doesn’t come down one way or the other, even if he gives the LDS official the last word. His story from beginning to end shows the most important point: the LDS church seeks to distance itself from the FLDS. But he also shows that the church’s goal of getting journalists to refrain from calling the FLDS “fundamentalist Mormons” is not universally shared. The one thing that would have been nice to have included in this story is some perspective from the FLDS themselves. What do they think of the LDS public relations campaign? It would also have been nice to find out what the LDS think the group should be called. All I could find on the LDS site was the not-so-specific “polygamist sect in Texas” and the clunky “the polygamous group in Texas that calls itself the FLDS,” neither of which are probably going to catch on at copydesks.

Print Friendly

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    The reason scholars think it fit to lump them all under the adjective of ‘Mormon’ is emergent from seeking simplicity, rather than accuracy, in religious/ideological/philosophical taxonomy. It’s rather akin to what goes on in the taxonomy of the various kingdoms described in Biology. One in particular, Protista, has been described as a dumping ground for organisms who’s primary similarity is merely that they don’t fit in any of the other classifications.

    Mormonism should be uniquely attributed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints due to the fact that the foundational items of what constitutes Mormonism are rejected by all other break away sects. The mere fact that they fit on many periphreal points is irrelevant just as grasshoper’s means of locomotion and range of color does not really tie it closely, in terms of the familial, to toads and frogs.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Hive,

    Two questions. What are the foundational items of what constitutes Mormonism that are rejected by all other break away sects? And how does holding the Book of Mormon as Scripture relate to the naming issue?

    Any thoughts on what term should be used by journalists instead of “fundamentalist Mormon”?

  • http://blog.kennypearce.net Kenny

    One might reasonable compare calling the FLDS “Mormons” to calling (say) Arians “Christians”. There are pros and cons to both classifications, but it’s not totally arbitrary to lump Arians and orthodox Christians together, because they do indeed have common roots. It’s easy to see why the LDS wants a sharper distinction made, just as the early Christians (not seeing the Arians as Christ-followers) wanted a sharper distinction made. What’s an “objective” scholar or reporter to do?

    Of course, the LDS church would do well to recognize that the reaction of traditional Christians to hearing the LDS call itself “Christian” is actually quite similar to the reaction of the LDS church to the FLDS calling themselves “Mormon.”

  • http://blog.kennypearce.net Kenny

    Interestingly, the LDS style-guide (http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide) says “When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged.” “The Church” (or perhaps with a lower c) might be appropriate in some contexts, but I doubt if anyone claiming to be unbiased will be using the term “the Church of Jesus Christ” to uniquely pick out the LDS church.

  • Jerry

    Mollie, your choice of pictures spoke the proverbial 1,000 words. I knew what the tenor of your post was before I read it. It was a nice break from people’s usual practice of having the picture indicate the issue. I’ll be looking forward to something like http://www.jerseymet.gov.je/images/lightening.jpg sometime soon.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    Mollie, regarding your “Two questions. What are the foundational items of what constitutes Mormonism that are rejected by all other break away sects?”

    They are that Joseph Smith set up the last dispensation which was not to be overcome or overthrown, or led astray, and it was to last until the second coming of Christ in glory. This is, in my view, the principle one. But if that’s not sufficient for you one needs but look at the Book of Mormon and see to what degree each group cleaves to it and emphasizes it and conforms to it’s precepts.

    Let’s look at polygamy as it relates to both the FLDS and the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), the LDS Church and how they all relate to the Book of Mormon’s teaching on polygamy.

    “30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people(to practice polygamy); otherwise they shall hearken unto these things(faithful monogamist marriage).”

    The Community of Christ, formerly the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, repudiated their brethren who went west, the “Brigahmites,” for their polygamy and they sought to distance themselves even from even Joseph’s practice of it.

    This is in contradiction to that part in the Book of Mormon. They would not even hear of an exception for it, and they never abided an exception since for the raising up of seed unto God. If they genuinely believed that the Book of Mormon was “the Key Stone” of their religion and that it was made for these days then they would still be open to polygamy. But aside from not being open to polygamy, not willing if called to to practice it, and other factors (such as their revision of their view of the First Vision–they no longer refer to it as a “vision” in their introduction of it to outsiders but as an “experience”) they are far closer to the Ecumenical Creeds than they are to the view of the Godhead as held by the LDS Church. They’ve even de-emphasized what Joseph Smith described as the ‘keystone’ of the religion he established. Go to their website and tell me how easy it is to tell that from the site they are connected to the Book of Mormon, then tell me how easy it is to try and read the text from their site or to obtain a copy of the Book of Mormon from them. Beyond that.

    Now to the FLDS. They don’t have the advantage of splintering at the one moment when there might have been a slight case for with whom belonged the authority given by Joseph Smith to the Twelve. But back to polygamy with connection to the FLDS. They also defy the Book of Mormon but to the other extreme. They hold to polygamy in spite of the fact that it’s not there for the raising up of seed, in fact they try and shed the lost boys to keep polygamy instituted. In the early days of the restoration with Smith and Young there were streams of converts coming in and polygamy was a viable form of raising up seed because it took advantage of women whose wombs otherwise would have been barren and without support. Yet the FLDS has never had anything akin to the missionary work even as it was found among the early saints. The rampant birth defects and their stagnation are proofs that their supposed holding to the doctrine has little to do with raising up seed unto the Lord. How can you be raising up seed unto the Lord when you’re shedding many of the boys you raise?

    Aside from all this is that which underlies this whole divergence. Both the FLDS and the CofC do not abide the idea of continuing revelation. They give lip service to it in naming prophets. But the way they treat revelation is made clear in even polygamy and what is laid forth in the Book that is suppose to be the keystone of MORMONISM. So in answer to your second question

    ” And how does holding the Book of Mormon as Scripture relate to the naming issue?”

    As I’ve demonstrated they don’t really hold to the Book of Mormon any more than the Muslims hold to the New Testament. As Muslims believe that the New Testament has some of history they don’t really believe in it as Christians do. Likewise with the splinter groups. They don’t really believe in what is the primary theme, or even many of the corollaries, of that ‘key stone’ book.

    “Any thoughts on what term should be used by journalists instead of “fundamentalist Mormon”? ”

    They could use the official name of their Church as recognized in this land? the FLDS? Just a thought.

    Again it’s simple taxonomy simplification. But just as one would be wrong to think that Fungi were closer to Plants than they were to humans (genetically speaking fungus and animals are more closely related) simply because plants seemed to grow in one spot, hold still, and have structural features that can be confused for the branches and roots found in plants doesn’t, in and of itself, make them plants.

  • Rathje

    The FLDS are “Mormons.” I don’t think there’s any getting around that, and I don’t mind sharing the label with them.

    Like it or not, polygamy is something that has to be owned by the LDS Church. I think it needs to be owned a little more than LDS leadership are currently doing as well. Acknowledging Joseph Smith’s implementation of the practice would be a nice start.

    I think if reporters really do their homework, they are not going to bow to the LDS leadership’s request that the FLDS not be given the label of “Mormon.” But that would require confidence with the subject matter that most reporters on this issue don’t have. So they’ll probably end up deferring to the LDS style guide, and an opportunity to hold a public religion accountable to society will be lost.

    Note, I support my faith (the LDS faith), but as an objective matter, I don’t think reporters should let the LDS Church “get off easy” on owning their own polygamous roots.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    Kenny,

    The Christian claims against us (Latter-day Saints) for using the term Christian do not have any kind of basis in consistency of descriptions and everything to do with clinging to extra-biblical creedal views, views that would place men like Origen and Justin Martyr, among others, outside of Christianity. Theirs is a case of revisionist defining and readings of the Bible. I can point out specific cases in which FLDS or CofC defy the principles of the Book of Mormon AND deny an emphasis of it and it’s place. We do no such thing with Christ and the records of him, the only thing we defy is an interpretation of such made several centuries after the happening AND an interpretation that has far more in common with neo-platonic views than anything.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    Rathje,

    “Acknowledging Joseph Smith’s implementation of the practice would be a nice start.”

    They rather do. When anti-Mormons and other critics brag about being able to go to the Church’s own family history site to find the actual Church records of such I don’t think there’s a case for stating they do otherwise. Do they state it at every other General Conference? No. But I’ve yet to see any Christian or Jewish sect that goes around telling about how one of it’s prophets was commanded to marry a whore, or how one of those it believes was a prophet commanded the whole nation of Israel, in the name of Jehovah, to carry out genocide on an entire ethnicity.

    There’s a great deal of the superstructure of many a faith (and every faith), or any and all ideologies even, that are not put at the forefront. Christ even told disciples to not share certain things. He did this both in the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon. To think that there would not be in-between issues, things we could disclose but should not overly emphasize, seems in my view to be an overly narrow view. There are things we share with all, there are things we share with most, there are things we share with none. There are things we keep open. Things we allow access to. Things we obscure. Obscurity or a lack of ‘straight forwardness’ is not inherently dishonesty. Abraham and Isaac employed it. Christ told people to not tell others certain things. The Constitution of the US was put together in secret, behind closed doors.

    There’s much to be lauded for the general concept of transparency. But a complete loss of privacy is not true transparency, rather it’s the ultimate profaning and vulgarizing of things.

    Not meaning to rant. And I hope I haven’t offended. But I get bothered when people feel that the Church should be more open than they would generally have their own lives be. And the imputation of deficiency OR of error OR of hiding things inappropriate simply because one refuses to disclose something is, to me, a blatantly illogical conclusion, one based on either the basest assumptions OR based on simply a horribly illogical view of what does and doesn’t constitute correct behavior.

  • Roy

    HiveRadical, thanks for your intellectual posts. It’s always nice to have the smart guys on our team.

  • Rathje

    Hive,

    Is it in the official Sunday school materials? It is not. I still read posts online from faithful Mormons indignantly declaring “Joseph never practiced polygamy.” Very often such faithful are then embarassed to learn that, well, actually, he did. If I had a nickle for every ex-Mormon who unwittingly tripped over the difficult parts of Mormon history, and then couldn’t handle the dissonance and left the faith in bitterness… well…

    The LDS Church has not done an adequate job of confronting its history. True, it does just about as good a job as American public education does in telling American history (not that that’s saying much), but as a marginalized religious minority, frequently the subject of intense criticism from our neighbors, we need to be doing better than this.

    As a faithful and believing Mormon, I’m tired of our people being blindsided by uncomfortable or difficult historical items, and going through faith crises as a result. Our history really should not be something we need to be ashamed of, overall, and it certainly shouldn’t be grounds for leaving the faith. But our Church is not doing an adequate job in preparing our people to cope.

    The intense public scrutiny our Church has received in the past year has actually been an incredibly positive thing for our Church in my opinion. It has forced Church leadership to proactively deal with issues they were previously content to ignore and wish away throughout the 1980s and 90s. Reporters can play a valuable role here, but they need to be informed about all the angles, or all they will really be able to do is parrot the LDS style guide and they won’t play any sort of balancing role at all.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    Rathje,

    Before posting what I’ve written I want to say that I agree with the general spirit of what you put forward, but not it’s manifestation. I pray that you do not take any of what I say the wrong way, or that I do not offend you in what I put forward. I seek to be open with my view. Sometimes I have deficiencies in trying to balance openness and brotherly decorum.

    There’s a great deal that’s not in the Sunday School materials. The Church generally has one lesson on Isaiah every two years–and Isaiah is far more critically tied, in my opinion, to salvation, and all the elaborate details of Church history are even less vital to salvation.

    Regarding your hypothetical account from nickles tied to ex-Mormons you’d find a great deal of people, even those with long periods of time in the Church and many callings, that had very shallow allegiance even through all those times. The Church lays things out as best it can to help as many people get as far as they can. The problem often comes when people feel like just going through the motions is ‘living’ their religion. People can complain about curriculum, what is and isn’t there, about church talks or testimony meetings but my general experience has been that the way the handle the receiving end of the administration of God’s kingdom says far more about them, and what they need to improve on, than it says about the Church’s administration. Not saying the administration or leadership is perfect, heaven knows it’s far from it. But when Brigham Young said that he felt that many who stayed at home were as well off as many who attended the meetings it WAS NOT a props to those who missed meetings (whether at home or loitering and chatting it up in the halls during meetings) rather he was slamming how people turn leave their efforts at the door. Everyone wants to be spoon fed, everyone things they should be able to get just what they need simply because they took three hours out of their week to come and conform to a block schedule. Certainly I know a great many who were taken a back a bit when they discovered certain things about Church history. What I find sad is that they take the same approach to critic’s presentation as they so long took to Church services, they just want to be spoon fed. Why should the Church bring up things that aren’t pertinent to their salvation or spiritual or physical well being when they wont even apply or interact with those things that ARE? In like manner of Christ’s question “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” If the saints aren’t demonstrating a willingness to really apply the principles presently shared then why should the Church believe them ready for peripherals? Do we go up to a person that’s struggling with the concept of prayer and say “By the way, the God you’re suppose to pray to, yeah…uh…he commanded a whole nation to commit genocide back in the day”

    I think people rather miss out on the main thrust behind Abraham going to kill his Son. Certainly it’s amazing that Abraham was willing to kill his Son. But what’s even more amazing, as I’ve looked at it, is what his willingness says about all of his life previous to that point. Here was a man who nearly lost his life to the wrong idea(s). Irrationality almost ended his life prematurely. Yet the man lived a life so in tune with the Truth that he not only recognized the voice of God, not only recognized what it was commanding him to do, but he recognized it with the clarity of thought and surety of conviction that, despite likely cognitive dissonance emergent from his finite view, he was certain enough of the reality of God, and the reality and purity of his connection to him, to KNOW to KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it WAS God that was commanding him to do this. This shows that Abraham had sought all his life to know the things of God and to be open to them.

    I think there’s a reason that Brigham Young said that there was an “eternity of cats to be let out of the bag” (paraphrasing). Certainly we should learn the history of our faith. Certainly we should seek it. But there’s a place for it and a way to do it and that’s NOT found in the time allocated by God for Sunday Worship at the Chapel. Before or after. In school. In one’s own time. It SHOULD BE DONE. But just as we do not pour over Isaiah in an indepth study in Church doesn’t mean it isn’t vital or that we shouldn’t do it. The same goes with History. It’s important, and we need to do it, and in fact it’s encouraged as far as I can see, but I feel it would be wrong for the Church to mandate it, just as it would be wrong to mandate, measure and report one’s progress in understanding Isaiah.

    I agree with you that the publicity has been good. I know we have nothing that is shameful. But I also know that doesn’t mean the Church should flog our membership, whether in Church or otherwise, through the nitty gritty details of the fact that a grand multitude of similarities between the New Testament and Ancient Egyptian mythology are all over the place or that animal sacrifice will be practiced at some point when the vast complex of temples in Zion, here in America, are constructed again. Likewise with polygamy. If members have an issue with polygamy then I’d imagine they’d be in a similar condition as Aaron and Miriam. It becomes a trial of faith and a time for repentance. If they’re cool with turning against God’s mouth piece and getting comfortable with spiritual leprosy as Miriam got a glimps of then there’s evidence that there’s a problem far deeper than some scandalous piece of history they’re missing from the early days of the restoration, rather they have an issue with the very early days of any and all revealed religion.

    I want to do all I can to help people over come this, but I don’t think institutionalizing detailed answers in Sunday School on every possible disconcerting thing in the history of the true faith is the right way to go. Because the whole history of faith is filled with things that are disconcerting to the finite mind.

    So I’m all for people looking into History, I’m all for members of the Church learning it, but if you’re going to teach the intricate details of the early days of the restoration in Sunday School then you should, if consistency and inoculating members of the Church is what you seek to do, also address the Old and New Testament. Because if plural marriage is something that disturbs someone to the point of abandoning the faith then I hope that person would also take pause at the idea of God commanding genocide. But if we really believe that personal revelation is key then we shouldn’t feel a need to have to inoculate the membership by institutionalizing comprehensive history in Sunday School. If someone is close to the Spirit, is someone really has and abides and seeks to strengthen their testimony then when they come to their own personal “Slay him” moment, like Nephi or Abraham, or if they just find anything disturbing, then the spirit and their capacity for clear discernment will guide them through. This is what is taught and what should be taught and emphasized. Just as there are “divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them.” to commit sin so to are there divers ways and means in which someone can be thrown into doubt or a quandary regarding their faith.

    The best inoculation is to do all we can to have people living close to the Spirit THAT will insure that they will be doing what is appropriate, THAT is how they will learn history. But if they are not willing to do that then institutionalizing inoculation efforts based around careful exposure will not do anything more for them in the long run than not mentioning anything at all. Because if they take issue with polygamy I HOPE they would also take issue with Genocide, or with Abraham deceiving Pharaoh, or with God smiting a man to death for merely touching a symbol in an effort to save it from falling.

    And if they are seeking the spirit they will come to a point where they will be as potent as possible in responding. In fact it’s the only way in my view that they will be able to always stand at as a witness, or have an answer for every man that asks them a reason for their faith, it’s the only way they will ultimately win if they ever seek to do as the Scripture directs and CONTEND for the faith. Because if they can’t discern between making themselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness (What Christ advocates) and serving mammon (what Christ preaches against) or the difference between having the spirit of contention (which is of the devil) and contending for the faith (which is of God) or the difference between having a spirit of fear (of Satan) or a fear of God (certainly of God) then they will most certainly “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”

    I pray as many as possible can see these truths.

    In summary I just can’t agree with your implication that these things should be found in the Sunday School manuals NOR that time should be devoted to them in Sunday School.

  • Dave2

    HiveRadical, I’m trying to follow you. So the FLDS aren’t Mormon because (i) they openly reject the notion that Joseph Smith established the last dispensation, and (ii) they openly reject the Book of Mormon’s teachings on marriage?

    I’m a little skeptical. I suspect an FLDSer would probably have something to say about both of those conditions, and I bet they’d say that they earnestly believe that Joseph Smith established the last dispensation (and that it continues through the FLDS) and that they accept the Book of Mormon’s teachings on marriage (I bet they’d have quite a bit to say about that passage from Jacob).

    So maybe I’m missing something, but from where I’m standing, it still looks like an internecine dispute.

  • Djara

    If only it were this simple.

    Not too many years ago, the Mormon church was all huffy in declaring, “We’re not Mormons, we’re LDS.”

    So why they did the LDS copyright the word Mormon? Why do they have a website called mormon [dot] org?

    In fact, based on their earlier declaration, there was no issue at all calling the FLDS “fundi Mormons” because as anyone who thoroughly studied out the LDS knows, the FLDS act exactly the way the Mormons did under their autocratic leader Brigham Young. “September Dawn” showed exactly how domineering and demanding Young was, based on the journals and oral history of those who lived during that time.

    Now the LDS, who own their own broadcasting company by the way, a company that sells advertising which intentionally plays on the emotions of its viewership, want to make everyone forget what really happened in the early days of Mormonism. They won’t honorably own polygamy, nor will they honorably own that they murdered over 120 innocent pioneers at Mountain Meadows.

    Polygamy is still quietly practiced throughout Utah, by many Mormons who go to LDS churches and pay LDS church offerings. Also, if a temple-married woman dies, her husband can marry again in the temple which is polygamy…. because if he dies, she canNOT marry again in the temple.

    Be very careful with this LDS church, who is courting top Neo-Con Republicans while being courted by them? How many other church leadership have Bush and Cheney met with? How many other church schools have Bush or Cheney given graduation addresses to?

    The LDS are very cagey, changing their “unchanging, eternal” doctrines to suit public opinion or to keep their charitable tax status (although telling their congregations to politically fight gay marriage in Calif has got to cross that line and put their tax exempt status in jeopardy?). Whereas the doctrine for years was that “Lamanites” were the ancestors of American Indians, now they are only “among” the ancestors of American Indians.

    How many other honest, God-fearing religions are building a $2+ billion mall??? What, Mormonism is all about worshiping at the alter of money now??

  • Rathje

    djara,

    September Dawn was an absolutely horrible movie, and a one-sided hit-job on the historical LDS faith. You can do better than that. Most historians (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) would recommend Juanita Brooks “Mountain Meadows Massacre” as the go-to source on that particular issue (not John Krakauer – absolutely NOT Krakauer’s silly little book). That would be a good start. It may simply reinforce the opinion you already had, but at least it would be a more informed opinion.

    And yes, you are correct that there’s a lot of weird dissonance in the LDS Church over identifying labels such as “Mormon” or “LDS.” Don’t agree with much of the rest of your post, but I do think you were correct there.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    Dave2,

    The first point, that they reject the continuity of the dispensation left by Joseph Smith, is rather key. The second point on marriage was merely one of many points on which they diverge from actual LDS teaching, though that point is considerable. I presented it as typical of their divergence from Mormonism. I find it rather striking that a sect that left our faith largely on disagreement over a single topic (it being the one on which they decided to somehow try and break away yet in a way to still give lip service to the items they rejected in their break, such as the potency of the words of the prophets) YET on the topic which they break from their break because of it, all in the name of supposedly staying true to what Joseph left is IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to what’s presented in the Book of Mormon on the subject. They appeal to prophets not to receive further light and knowledge, but rather because they wished to rebel from such. Where’s their missionary effort? Joseph Smith placed such at the fore front. When he was facing all kinds of trouble, when the Law sought him under erroneous pretenses he took his best and brightest followers to England and other places to go and seek converts rather than to keep them by his side to help him deal with the overwhelming issues. Where are the great missionary efforts of the FLDS?

    It’s as much an internecine dispute as the conflict between Jews/Christians vs Muslims on Abraham. We agree that the FLDS came from us, and thusly from the tradition founded by Joseph Smith, but Just as I believe Muslims are only tied to Abraham by lineage and not by faith such is the same with the FLDS or the CofC (formerly the RLDS). They simply don’t abide a faith that’s at all similar to what Joseph Smith left. Joseph Smith had a consistent and massive missionary effort, Joseph emphasized the Book of Mormon, Joseph said it was for our day and would have it at the forefront of any and all efforts. In the essential differences between Joseph and Jeffs or between the continuation held in the LDS and completely absent in the CofC is a divide wide enough to quickly pass the Pacific through. Joseph taught flexibility to heeding newly revealed commands, even when they seemed to counter previous ones, (the Book of Mormon emphasizes this too) but the FLDS and RLDS have a consistant record of pretending revelation simply in effort to hold to the old and reject the new. Once they break there’s nothing new and there’s no great growth or increase in strength, they all fall away and become a biword and a hiss. They go from generation to generation continuing in their degeneration. Relative to the persecution that drove the saints eventually to Utah these other break aways have dealt with relatively little in the way of real persecution.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    “Not too many years ago, the Mormon church was all huffy in declaring, “We’re not Mormons, we’re LDS.”

    So why they did the LDS copyright the word Mormon? Why do they have a website called mormon [dot] org?”

    Djara,

    You are not presenting this accurately, we did not disown the word or adjective or noun of Mormon. We simply put forward the fact that we wished to generally go by our official designation, we believe it was given it us. This is not for not liking the term Mormon, but out of deference to the fact that God gave us an official title and we prefer that to the one that, while taken from the keystone book of our faith, was originally a name used by our enemies to describe us. Believing there was good reason for God giving us the title of Latter-day saints is not to say we wish to be rid of the word Mormon.

    “anyone who thoroughly studied out the LDS knows, the FLDS act exactly the way the Mormons did under their autocratic leader Brigham Young.”

    No. Anyone who thoroughly studies our history would NOT come to that conclusion.

    ” “September Dawn” showed exactly how domineering and demanding Young was, based on the journals and oral history of those who lived during that time.”

    September Dawn is as potent in it’s historical accuracy as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a historically accurate accounting of Israel and the Jews.

    “nor will they honorably own that they murdered over 120 innocent pioneers at Mountain Meadows.”

    It’s ownership is to those who carried it out. What you want
    is for the Church to apologize for something it’s leader did not do.

    “Polygamy is still quietly practiced throughout Utah, by many Mormons who go to LDS churches and pay LDS church offerings.”

    It’s called bigamy/adultery, they get excommunicated when it’s found out.

    ” Also, if a temple-married woman dies, her husband can marry again in the temple which is polygamy. . .. because if he dies, she canNOT marry again in the temple.”

    ooohhhhh! How sinister! Serial polygamy!!! Can’t have a man that’s lost his wife marry again, but a man outside of the church divorces and remarries do you call that polygamy?

    “The LDS are very cagey, changing their “unchanging, eternal” doctrines to suit public opinion or to keep their charitable tax status”

    No doctrine has ever been changed.

    “(although telling their congregations to politically fight gay marriage in Calif has got to cross that line and put their tax exempt status in jeopardy?).”

    You clearly fail to understand what is and is not prohibited in the area of tax exemption.

    ” Whereas the doctrine for years was that “Lamanites” were the ancestors of American Indians, now they are only “among” the ancestors of American Indians.”

    That was never doctrine to say they were the only ancestors of American Indians.

    “How many other honest, God-fearing religions are building a $2+ billion mall???”

    At least one. How many honest, God fearing people in this nation are invested in one of countless mutual funds or other investment tools that use corporate law to mercilessly squeeze money out of anyone they can?

    ” What, Mormonism is all about worshiping at the alter of money now??”

    Who said (in the NT) “…make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness”?

    Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ essentially told people to make themselves friends with capitalism (mammon is commerce). We are to get along with the economy, but not serve it. Building a mall that costs over a billion dollars is getting along with mammon, refusing to use any tithing funds at all to do it is refusing to serve mammon.

  • http://blog.kennypearce.net Kenny

    Hive,

    The importance of the creeds to historical Christianity is not in dispute, nor is the influence of Neoplatonism on the creeds. However, the charges made against Mormons are generally the same charges you are making against the FLDS – namely, that their views are inconsistent with the fundamental principles of your religion and the teachings of your holy books. Further, the FLDS charges that the mainstream LDS has left the principles followed by the early Mormons (sound familiar?). This is not the place to debate the merits of these charges. But from the perspective of “objective” journalism, I don’t see any justification for not treating the two sets of charges identically: in both cases, a larger, better established religious group is trying to dissociate itself from a smaller, less well established religious group on the basis of certain historical/interpretive claims as to what the foundation of their religion is. In both cases, the two groups are involved in a dispute over these factual claims. Should a reporter just accept one side and reject the other? Well, only if either (1) evidence the reporter can evaluate for his or herself, or (2) the opinion of unbiased experts on the subject makes it obvious that one side is correct in its factual claims and the other incorrect. Clear evidence and unbiased experts both tend to be hard to come by in religious disputes.

  • Dave

    HiveRadical, didn’t the LDS change its position on inclusion of African-Americans when exclusion became politically untenable?

  • http://jettboy.blogspot.com Jettboy

    Its position, yes. However, not against the beliefs of the LDS Church that has always been someday the Blacks would be able to have full rights to the Priesthood. In fact, Joseph Smith gave the Priesthood to some blacks. Thus, the contention within the LDS Church that taking away the Priesthood from the blacks was not a doctrine.

    I am someone who thinks that they should retain the name “Mormon” out of historical relationship, just as much as I think Mormons are Christian out of theological pedigree. I understand completely why the officials of the LDS Church are trying to make a distinction. Personally, I think they have and will fail. Perhaps “Fundimentalist” should be dropped because mainstream Mormons consider themselves fundimentalists, although not in the popular news-speak. Perhaps “polygamist Mormons” is the best description. As for non-polygamist mainstream Mormon relations? There are so few of those it might be best to call them by their name; such as Community of Christ, formerly Reorganized LDS or even Bickerites (sp?).

    The problem is twofold. The first is people like Djara trying desperately to tie Mormonism into a nefarious organization. Second, historical confusion that perpetuates biggotry and ignorance to a large and growing American culture. As an Evangelical I read once said, we may pretend that Mormons will someday go away, but they have proven they are here to stay no matter how much others wish differently.

  • Dave

    Thus, the contention within the LDS Church that taking away the Priesthood from the blacks was not a doctrine.

    So, excluding African-Americans wasn’t a doctrine, they just did it? Reminds me of an earlier assertion that support for slavery isn’t a basic doctrine, but droves of Christian churches just did it in the 19th Century.

  • http://jettboy.blogspot.com Jettboy

    “So, excluding African-Americans wasn’t a doctrine, they just did it? ”

    I don’t particularly believe that myself, but yes that has been a contention within the membership of the Church even during the ban years.

  • http://faithpromotingstories.org roger pack

    I’d probably, as an LDS, call the FLDS ‘break off Mormons’ or ‘break away Mormons’ or something. I think that’s the type of distinction the church wishes existed.
    Oh lds.org is the official site, I guess.
    -R

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    Kenny, there is evidence you, or anyone, can evaluate for themselves, I’ve put forward a good amount of it.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    Dave,

    There was no underlying spoken policy. The prohibition was based on policy decisions by the leadership of the Church, as such it was binding on the Church while in place.

    I have made a video on my YouTube Channel about this. If you’re interested let me know.

  • Michael

    Mollie,
    Your final statement underscores the media’s inability to fully convey the truth of a matter when it can’t convert to a catchy headline. It’s unfortunate that, all too often, the story isn’t so much about getting to the bottom of something as it is about protecting the bottom line.

  • Dario

    For a great view of “real” Mormons, take a look at these documentary films: http://fitforthekingdom.byu.edu/

  • Jacob

    HiveRadical,

    I have to say, I was quite impressed with your comments on this page, and your depth of knowledge. Your arguements were very clear, open, and insightful. I agree with you 100%

    Thanks for offering your thoughts.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/HiveRadical HiveRadical

    Thanks Jacob, now if only my grammar and spelling were what they should be then people wouldn’t have to try as hard to follow me! :)

  • MG

    Kenny and others have made the interesting comparison between Mormons asserting they are a restoration of the original Church of Christ and, thus, clearly Christians, to the angst of other Christians, and the LDS church not wanting the FLDS to be referred to as “fundamentalist Mormons” or LDS. On the one hand the LDS reject the idea that they are somehow not Christian based on the rejection of post-biblical creeds, and at the same time reject the use of Mormon or LDS of other organizations that have broken off from the mainstream church.

    There is one important note of difference in these two scenarios. When the LDS dispute their exclusion as Christian, they are disputing the definition of Christian including the acceptance of the post-biblical Trinitarian creeds. The LDS assert that acceptance of Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world is the criteria of Christianity, not an extra-biblical creed written 300 years after the fact. However, there is more fundamental difference here. The LDS are not using the name of any official religious organization when they call themselves Christians. They are not calling themselves “fundamentalist Catholics” or “the true Baptists.” No one is confusing Mormons for Catholics or Lutherans. They are not hijacking the name of an official organization.

    The FLDS, on the other hand, have essentially changed their name from “The Work” and other titles to the FLDS (too lazy to write the whole thing). This is similar to what the Westboro Baptist Church has done, which the Southern Baptist Convention rejects as a baptist faith and which perturbs true Baptists who have nothing to do with the Westboro antics. The Westboro church has hijacked the official title of the Baptist faith. They (Westboro) claim to be Christian as well, but no one entity owns that title, so no one is disputing their claim as being part of the general Christian movement (although their antics being categorized as “Christian behavior” is certainly dubious). Thus, it is more of a category than an official designation. It’s the fact that they call themselves “Baptists” that causes the confusion.

    The FLDS have done a similar thing. They have hijacked the name of an officially registered organization, the LDS church, and created confusion. That’s the fundamental difference. Mormon has become synonymous with the LDS organization. It cannot be used as both a grouping of religions and a title of a specific religion at the same time unambiguously any more than the Catholic church can be a grouping of similar movements and the title of a specific institution. Even the scholars, such as Jan Shipps, have missed this point. She is terrific and I admire her work, but the question is are the scholars or the church officials the “keeper of the name?” This is a subtle point, but we are dealing with copyrighted names here. Now I’m not sure what other designation could be found, but “polygamous faiths” or “faiths of the restoration movement” might be more in line with designating by category instead of official title of one group.

    It’s interesting to note that in 1830 when the church received its name (at the time the Church of Christ or Church of Jesus Christ) there was no other US religion claiming the official title of the “Church of Christ.” (James E. Talmage, The Great Apostasy, 158; Tad R. Callister, The Inevitable Apostasy, 291). So the LDS church was actually the first church in the US to actually carry the name Christ in its official title!