Posted on 05/06/2008 10:18:16 AM PDT by Utah Girl
The historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took issue Monday with a New York Times opinion piece comparing FLDS polygamists in Texas to 19th century Mormons.
In a statement released Monday, church historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen took exception to author Timothy Egan's portrayal in the Times.
"Mr. Egan's cavalier comparison of FLDS polygamy practices with those of 19th century Latter-day Saints is historically unsupported and simply wrong," wrote Elder Jensen, a member of the church's Quorums of Seventy. "By implication, he also unfairly impugns the integrity of all Latter-day Saint marriages and families, the very institutions they hold most dear."
In a piece posted on the Times Web site April 23, Egan called the polygamists in west Texas "1870s Stepford wives" and "men with their low monotones and pious, seeming disregard for the law on child sex." And Egan drew parallels between present-day FLDS members and 1800s Mormons.
In his response, Elder Jensen wrote, "The conditions surrounding the practice of polygamy in Texas today bear little resemblance to the plural marriage practiced by Mormons more than a century ago," he said. "As thoughtful historians know, a serious study of history does not impose contemporary understandings and sensibilities onto an interpretation of earlier time periods."
Elder Jensen also said Egan's tacit claim that 19th century Mormon women were subservient and backward was false. Women played an integral part in LDS culture, held jobs and were politically active, Elder Jensen said.
"For a long time ... the church was at odds with basic American ideals, and not just because old guys sanctioned marital sex with dozens of teenage girls," Egan wrote. "What you see in Texas — in small part — is a look back at some of the behavior of Mormonism's founding fathers."
"Smith was fortunate enough to find a religious cover for his desire," Egan continued. "His polygamy 'revelation' was put into The Doctrine and Covenants, one of three sacred texts of Mormonism."
In his response, Elder Jensen wrote that men and women often married at a younger age than might be considered acceptable today. A girl marrying at 15 was not uncommon and the common-law marriage age for women was 12, he said. Women were not forced into marriages and divorces were "readily granted," Elder Jensen wrote.
Attempts Monday night to contact Egan for comment were unsuccessful.
Online:
• Column by New York Times Op-Extra columnist Timothy Egan (April 23)
• Response by Elder Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (May 5)
FIP Ping to #25
Polygamy is a divine institution. It has been handed down direct from God. The United States cannot abolish it. No nation on earth can prevent it, nor all the nations of the earth combined,...
I defy the United States; I will obey God.
Source: John Taylor (on January 4, 1880), President, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Quoted in Under The Banner of Heaven John Krakauer, Doubleday (July 15, 2003)
FLDS maintan that they are following the religion that was handed down from Joseph Smith and reinforced through revelation as noted above. They also contend that the LDS has compromised itself in capitulating to the laws of the US government on the issue of polygamy. Therefore, the FLDS claim that they are the only true church. Why are they wrong?
And other than the practice of modern polygamy, what are the doctrinal differences between the LDS and the FLDS?
Don't these two organizations have significant commonalities, except for the modern practice of polygamy?
Why didn’t they just ask Elder Romney about this topic?
He would have interesting opinions I would think. Especially when one considers the fact that his father was born in a break-away ‘fundamentalist’ polygamist community in Mexico.
Thank you for the back-up documentation, anse112.
Yes. Here is Vol. 5, p. 474, March 15, 1844, Times & Seasons by Hyrum Smith, Joseph's brother: "Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to-day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that thtat man teaches false doctrine, for therer is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such odctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about."
(Notice Hyrum Smith's cleverly worded out of "will stand a CHANCE to be brought before the High Council"...and for what purpose, I add? (To be congratulated perhaps by Joseph Smith of the 'High Council' for "having as many wives as he pleases"...perhaps if he became one of the dozen men who shared their wives with Jos. Smith?)
Well, that answers the questions of why all the mormon threads got pulled into the News forum.
Ouch...
Plural marriages, involving 14-17 year olds and married women, aren't even close to the societal "norm" (but neither was lying about it...or seer stone fraud, or banking fraud that leads to bankruptcy, or copying masonic rituals, or falsely translating plates and funeral papyri, or destroying printing presses, or adultery, and so forth).
LOL. I wonder when FR will allow Muslim posts urging us all to join with Mohammed, and see the “truth”?
The problem with getting into any kind of discussion with you people is that you constantly shift ground. It is pointless, tedious, and frustrating to try to reason to a conclusion, because you constantly respond with non sequiturs. The issue was not plural marriage, but whether teenage girls commonly got married in the 19th century. They did. The mean age was much lower then than it is now, meaning that there were more teenagers getting married. If the mean age was 20, then there were just as many teenagers getting married as women over 20.
I’m done with you.
You never even started.
And...look at the documentation provided, which not only gives the mean age but the average age (23-24).
The statistics bust the LDS propgated myth that girls regularly got married at an early age in the 19th century. IT WAS NOT THE NORM. IN FACT, IT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE NORM!
And why did your alleged prophet lie about his polygamous marriages to teenage girls and to married women?
The cited truth offends, doesn't it?
I wonder if the mormons thought that there was a “guarantee” there would be no opposition to their proselytizing when moved to the news forum?
BACK OF THE BUS, INMANS....STEP SMARTLY TO THE BACK OF THE BUS!
It really screws things up ya know...
You need to take a divine time out and chew a little cactus...
I’ve actually been to several different denominations services. Midnight mass, Baptist Sunday school, etc. I’ve visited with friends.
What was the percentage of teenage girls who were getting married to men who were 20 years their senior who were already married to 5 or 6 other women?
***The mean age was much lower then than it is now, meaning that there were more teenagers getting married. If the mean age was 20, then there were just as many teenagers getting married as women over 20.***
Did you even BOTHER to read the stats posted? In 1850, the mean age for women was 24, 4 years older than in 1950. This means that the age was HIGHER then, NOT lower.
That, in and of itself, pretty much sends Mormon claims that people got married YONGER then down the abyss of self-delusion. You actually need to be intellectually honest and admit that ANY claim that the mean age was lower then is nothing but garbage yanked out of that same Mormon hat that Joseph Smith got the BOM.
In short, you couldn’t be MORE wrong if you tried. Hey, it sucks, but don’t continue to hold onto the delusion.
***“Mean” age just means that there were an equal number women younger than 20 and older than 20 being married. It doesn’t mean it’s the “norm.”***
BTW, you couldn’t be MORE wrong here, either. The Mean is the average. What you are meaning to use is the MEDIAN, or middle.
P.S. I notice that some of the studies show the AVERAGE age for women varying from 22-24 in the stats shown on THIS thread. That still doesn’t demonstrate a younger marrying age. It simply shows variation in source citation.
Lady Lawyer, please see more of these "pesky" historical facts (post# 54) that bust the LDS propagated myth that 19th century women regularly married much earlier than today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.