Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage [Book lists almost 500 Lds in post-manifesto unions]
BYU Studies ^ | 1993 (review date) | Author: B. Carmon Hardy Reviewer: Lowell C. Bennion

Posted on 03/27/2013 4:42:02 PM PDT by Colofornian

Author: B. Carmon Hardy

Reviewer: Lowell C. Bennion

Categories: History of the Church, Pioneer Period

Journal: 33:2

In recent years, studies of Mormon plural marriage have multiplied almost as rapidly as polygamous families did more than a century ago. With this book, Cartoon Hardy, who teaches American history at California State University in Fullerton, has made a major contribution to our understanding of the solemn covenant of plurality. His study, The Mormon Polygamous Passage (1831–1911), began with his 1963 dissertation on "The Mormon Colonies of Northern Mexico," and he has steadily expanded that research ever since. Solemn Covenant, Hardy's first book, serves as a marvelous, if belated, commemoration of the centenary of Wilford Woodruff's 1890 Manifesto.

The volume's length, vague title, and price should not deter any student of LDS plural marriage from purchasing it. If one discounts the indexes, the list of 262 post-Manifesto plural marriages, and the extensive notes at the end of each chapter, the actual text amounts to about 250 pages. The 5:9 ratio of text to total length reflects the confusion surrounding post-1890 polygamy and Hardy's penchant for documenting his sources.

The title barely hints at the scope and focus of the book, but the introduction makes clear its overriding aim: to trace "the transformation of Mormonism from a society that idealized polygamy to one that . . . now exalts the traditional monogamous home" of Victorian America (xxi). The book began as an attempt to explain why almost half of the Latter-day Saint Church's top authorities, along with more than two hundred other men, took plural wives after the 1890 Manifesto. Hardy soon realized that a full understanding of polygamy's protracted demise (1890–1911) required consideration of its equally prolonged birth (1831–52) and of the periods when Mormons practiced it openly (1852–85) or in hiding (1885–90) under federal pressure to abandon it.

Thus, the first three chapters treat the Church's efforts to make a plurality of wives as much a part of its patriarchal theology as a plurality of gods. As a historian of ideas, Hardy places this attempt in the context of a little-known current of early modern Western thought that favored polygamy over monogamy. He takes issue with those who "portray plural marriage as incidental to the major thrust of the Latter-day Saint past" (18). He insists they have underestimated the importance attached to a divine order that would allow males to satisfy their polygamous natures, eliminate prostitution, and even "whiten" Native Americans. Such beliefs gained strength as the Saints gathered west to populate an ever-expanding Great Basin Kingdom.

Ironically, in Hardy's view, polygamy emerged triumphant in Mormon theology just as Victorian America made monogamy a near religion. Reform-minded Americans soon viewed Mormon Utah in much the same way that orthodox Mormons now perceive worldly Nevada. Hardy sees the growing gentile attacks on the Saints as more than a mere ruse to wrest control of the territory from the Church. He concurs with an 1887 conclusion of the Utah Commission: "'The political history of the territory of Utah and the system of plural marriage are so closely interwoven that the one cannot be considered separate and apart from the other'" (57).

Only by recognizing the Mormons' strong belief in the "Blessings of the Abrahamic Household" (title of chapter 3), Hardy contends, can one fathom their extreme reluctance to abandon the plural principle. From 1885 until at least 1904, the Church, in its "Tactical Retreat: The Manifesto of 1890" (chapter 4), presented "itself as increasingly obedient while privately refusing surrender" (127). It issued not one but a dozen or more declarations designed to assure the nation that Latter-day Saints would honor the laws of the land. These manifestos invariably caused consternation among outsiders, controversy among Church leaders, and confusion among members.

Hardy's fine sense of irony manifests itself repeatedly as he examines the retreat from the principle. The Gentiles, notably Utah's governor and Salt Lake City's Tribune, pressured Mormon leaders into submitting the Manifesto to an immediate vote of the Church to make it more binding. Such pressure eventually helped persuade the Church to make it an official revelation by adding it to the Doctrine and Covenants (1908). Hardy clearly agrees with Apostle Marriner W. Merrill's 1891 view: "'I do Not believe the Manifesto was a revelation from God but was formulated by Prest. Woodruff and endorsed by His Councilors and the Twelve Apostles for expediency to meet the present situation of affairs in the Nation or those against the Church.'" (150).

The Church's frequent authorizations of plural marriage at home and abroad after 1890 provide the best evidence, in Hardy's eyes, of Mormonism's commitment to the principle. And he devotes the second half of the book (chapters 5–10) to polygamy's long and painful death. In the early 1890s, few plural marriages took place. But once Utahns gained statehood (1896), the number increased—first under Woodruff, then even more under a cautious Lorenzo Snow, and finally most of all under Joseph F. Smith (see graph, 317). Rather than inhibit Mormon interest in contracting new polygamous unions, the B. H. Roberts hearings seem to have intensified it, with the figure rising to forty in 1903. Chapters 5 and 6 (plus appendix 2) contain considerably more detail than Michael Quinn's 1985 article about the circumstances that prompted and enabled dozens of men, a majority of them prominent Church leaders, to imitate Abraham.1

John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley were merely two of nine or ten General Authorities who did not let the 1890 Manifesto deter them from taking plural wives. Hardy even thinks it "likely that President Wilford Woodruff also took a new plural companion in 1897" (227), although Woodruff's latest biographer disagrees.2 Whether the President did or not, the rising incidence of polygamy sparked new rounds of debate among national progressive crusaders and Church leaders. The Smoot hearings of 1904–6, discussed in chapter 7, failed to convince the nation of Mormon sincerity in giving up plurality. National skepticism compelled the Church not only to issue another manifesto but to request the resignations of Taylor and Cowley.

Even those actions did not end authorized plural marriages. Between 1904 and 1911, three dozen more were performed by a dwindling number of certain general and local authorities committed to perpetuating the practice. In response to the Salt Lake Tribune's reports of a new "outbreak," the Church conducted its own hearings in 1910–11. And at Senator Smoot's urging, it excommunicated and/or removed from leadership positions a number of polygamists. Just as the principle's death knell finally seemed to sound, the Mexican Revolution forced the largest colony of Mormon "cohabs" across the U.S. border and brought polygamy once more under the national spotlight. By 1912, however, as chapters 8–10 make clear, monogamy had all but triumphed among a new generation of Mormons and had brought them "to a condition of estrangement from their polygamous past" (338). While hundreds had persisted in keeping plurality alive, tens of thousands had accepted the Church's public statements and turned their backs on the principle, even on the refugees from northern Mexico. The few who clung tenaciously to polygamy, the so-called fundamentalists, simply strengthened the Church's determination to defend monogamy.

For reasons not specified, Hardy's concluding essay appears as appendix 1 rather than as a chapter 11. Some readers may find the implications of its title—"Lying for the Lord"—as difficult to accept as Mormon responsibility for the Mountain Meadows massacre, but the phrase seems justified. Hardy demonstrates with numerous examples how the hierarchy rationalized its use of questionable measures to preserve the principle and to protect those striving to keep it alive. Each successive crisis after the Edmunds Act of 1882 naturally led to greater dissimulation. Some Church leaders recognized the trend and expressed their fear, in the words of Charles W. Penrose, that it might make the "'rising generation a race of deceivers'" (368). Hardy concludes that "the decision to project only the appearance of compromise" brought all kinds of agony upon the church, including the persistence of Mormon fundamentalism (376). He confirms what other scholars have found, but places post-Manifesto polygamy in a much broader and more balanced context.

Professor Hardy has achieved his aim of illuminating polygamy's imprint upon the palimpsest of Mormon history and in tracing "the trying passage of its decline." He urges his readers to "remember [that] there were thousands of devoted men, women, and children whose lives were given to its trial" (352). Appropriately enough, he dedicates the volume to them. Some may wish he had devoted more space to the trials experienced by plural Mormons, particularly the wives who comprised the highest percent of the population involved and probably suffered the most. They certainly deserve another volume from Hardy's logical mind and generally lucid prose. Perhaps he can respond to that request by revising and publishing his doctoral thesis.

However, Hardy may hesitate to write another book about polygamy for the same kinds of "personal considerations" that prompted Victor W. Jorgensen to withdraw his name as coauthor (xi). Both authors found the experience a trying one because of negative reactions from certain kith and kin who seem to share the Church's view that the less written about Mormonism's plural past the better. Perhaps though, thanks to their superb illumination of Mormonism's rough passage from monogamy to polygamy and back to monogamy, others will find it easier to speak and write about the plural and tangled lives of so many nineteenth-century Saints.

To the credit of both Carmon Hardy and the University of Illinois Press, Solemn Covenant has very few typos and unclear passages. (For one example of the latter, see the last sentence on page 369.) The book contains a set of photographs, mostly of key leaders of the Church, but fails to integrate them directly with the text. Only three of the illustrations include wives, and the one I like best does not identify seven young mothers (each holding an infant) in exile in Mexico at the turn of the century.

Many readers may find Solemn Covenant a bit too solemn. In his relentless search for post-1890 polygamists, Hardy seldom offers any relief from the Sturm und Drang that accompanied the passing of the principle. His portrayal of the fate of the few who entered the plural order after 1890 evokes so much pathos that one longs for some humor from, say, Dixie or Sanpete folklore. Several portraits make the polygamists seem like rather pathetic figures (see, for example, Hardy's treatment of Apostle George W. Teasdale on pages 222–27). The book thus often conveys the impression that plural living had no redeeming features.

Such an image clearly counters the Pollyanna conclusion that "while some [polygamous families] were very unhappy, most seemed to have gotten along very well."3 Neither view adequately represents the complex reality of plurality for two generations of Mormons. Whether practiced openly or secretly, plural marriage affected its participants in such diverse ways that broad generalizations based on specific periods and sources become suspect. Even within a single plural family, members reacted to the principle in markedly different fashion, and their reactions often changed through time.4

The recent spate of polygamy studies may seem like a surfeit to some readers. But if Solemn Covenant is correct about the central place of plural marriage in nineteenth-century Mormonism, then "Polly Gamie"—Apostle Orson Hyde's favorite topic, according to one unmarried woman in Manti—deserves many more scholarly articles and books.5

Notes

1. D. Michael Quinn, "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904," Dialogue 18 (Spring 1985): 9–105.

2. Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991), 326–29.

3. Jessie L. Embry, Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1987), 193.

4. For a recent demonstration of how differently the principle operated upon individual lives, see Maria S. Ellsworth, ed., Mormon Odyssey: The Story of Ida Hunt Udall, Plural Wife (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992).

5. Eds. note: For extensive bibliographic information about other recent studies of the nineteenth-century practice of polygamy, see Thomas G. Alexander's review of Richard S. Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy in BYU Studies 32 (Winter and Spring 1992): 295–98; and Patricia Lyn Scott, "Mormon Polygamy: A Bibliography, 1977–92," Journal of Mormon History 19 (Spring 1993): 133–55.


TOPICS: History; Moral Issues; Other non-Christian; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: antichristian; gaymarriage; inman; lds; mormonism; polyamory; polygamy; postmanifesto
From the BYU review article: The book began as an attempt to explain why ALMOST HALF OF THE LATTER-DAY SAINT CHURCH'S TOP AUTHORITIES, ALONG WITH MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED OTHER MEN, took plural wives after the 1890 Manifesto. Hardy soon realized that a full understanding of polygamy's protracted demise (1890–1911) required consideration of its equally prolonged birth (1831–52) and of the periods when Mormons practiced it openly (1852–85) or in hiding (1885–90) under federal pressure to abandon it. Thus, the first three chapters treat the Church's efforts to make a plurality of wives as much a part of its patriarchal theology as a plurality of gods. As a historian of ideas, Hardy places this attempt in the context of a little-known current of early modern Western thought that favored polygamy over monogamy.

I have this book by B. Carmon Hardy. I've looked at Hardy's appendix: He lists 220 Mormon men who took

ADDITIONAL PLURAL WIVES...

...BETWEEN October 10 --> 2010


(Note the Lds "prophet" "manifesto" which supposedly was to halt new polygamous arrangements was "binding" as of October 6, 1890).

Note: These 220 men took about 275 additional plural wives during that 20-year period. (Almost half of these men already had -- at my count -- about 112 plural wives between them before the manifesto...so the overall average was almost three wives per man).

About HALF of the 220 men Hardy lists in his appendix -- 109 to be exact -- were monogamists when the 1890 "Manifesto" was passed. IoW, they weren't used to a "polygamous lifestyle" -- and had NO reason to take on a second, third, fourth, fifth wives -- with the "manifesto" in place.

The 220 men who took on 275 ADDITIONAL wives broke down, year-wise, as:
1910: 5
1909: 10
1908: 3
1907: 6
1906: 4
1905: 4
1904: 20
1903: 39 [this was the year Lds "prophet" Joseph F. Smith had to "lay down" Manifesto II to tell the Mormons to "stop" polygamy]
1902: 28
1901: 33
1900: 21
1899: 9
1898: 20
1897: 15
1896: 4
1895: 5
1894: 12
1893: 3
1892: 6
1891: 3
1890 between Oct. 10-->Dec: 8
TOTAL: 275 women initiated among 220 men

And precisely because over 100 additional unions were done in the 20th century, some of these plural unions did not die out until the late 1950s, with two possible families, the early 1960s.

From the BYU review article: Hardy clearly agrees with Apostle Marriner W. Merrill's 1891 view: "'I do Not believe the Manifesto was a revelation from God but was formulated by Prest. Woodruff and endorsed by His Councilors and the Twelve Apostles for expediency to meet the present situation of affairs in the Nation or those against the Church.'" (150).

(Well, ya know what this means...it means that IF D&C 132 is "correct" -- in a "revelation" that opened the door for Mormon polygamy...then there's BEEN NO "revelation" to really "shut it." It's just all for socio-political expediency...says both an Lds past "apostle"...and, in effect, this BYU source!!!

And, what this also means is that the fLDS are the "only" true keepers of Joseph Smith polygamous orthodoxy! (And here we thought the Mormon fundamentalists were the "offshoot"!!!)

Why is this being posted?

Because SOME MORMONS KEEP INSISTING THAT MORMON POLYGAMY DIED OUT IN 1890!


1 posted on 03/27/2013 4:42:02 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
From the BYU review article:

Some readers may find the implications of its [chapter] title—"Lying for the Lord"—as difficult to accept as Mormon responsibility for the Mountain Meadows massacre, but the phrase seems justified. Hardy demonstrates with numerous examples how the hierarchy rationalized its use of questionable measures to preserve the principle and to protect those striving to keep it alive. Each successive crisis after the Edmunds Act of 1882 naturally led to greater dissimulation. Some Church leaders recognized the trend and expressed their fear, in the words of Charles W. Penrose, that it might make the "'rising generation a race of deceivers'" (368). Hardy concludes that "the decision to project only the appearance of compromise" brought all kinds of agony upon the church, including the persistence of Mormon fundamentalism (376).

Hardy's right. Lds "apostle" Charles W. Penrose was right. The BYU reviewer is right...it, in fact, did present a generational legacy of Mormons raised as "deceivers!"

2 posted on 03/27/2013 4:42:44 PM PDT by Colofornian (If BoM is everlasting gospel, why no god as exalted man, 3 glorious degrees, men becoming gods, etc?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Obsession, possibly to the extent of mental illness.

Have you considered seeking professional help?


3 posted on 03/27/2013 4:45:10 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Where you aware that the business fighting DOMA, Marriott hotel chain (owned by lds) is the biggest contribute to the effort. Of course lds have not stopped polygamy, they just call it celestial marriage.
4 posted on 03/27/2013 4:50:59 PM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker; Colofornian

I frankly appreciate Colofornian’s posts. I am keenly interested in the LDS and the info (he?) posts is quite informative both for what he posts and for how other people react to it.


5 posted on 03/27/2013 4:51:40 PM PDT by MeganC (The left have so twisted public perceptions that the truth now appears pornographic.- SpaceBar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

Have you ever considered that you are on the Religion Forum, and this is a discussion about momronism.
Have you ever considered that you never seem to contribute to the conversation but apparently obsess on attacking the poster of the thread.
Have considered the possible insanity of this apparent repeated action?


6 posted on 03/27/2013 4:54:14 PM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

He likes his Mormonism. However, what he posts seems to be true. Mormon history seems quite at variance with what the church projects today. I have not seen his postings refuted.


7 posted on 03/27/2013 4:57:18 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
 photo SCIEN_zps2dd1b223.jpg Maybe Xenu can help...
8 posted on 03/27/2013 5:03:14 PM PDT by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Back in 1976 the Today show had a report from each state. For Utah, they mentioned that there were approximately 10,000 polygamous marriages in Utah at that time.
9 posted on 03/27/2013 5:09:47 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (The murals in OKC are destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
For Utah, they mentioned that there were approximately 10,000 polygamous marriages in Utah at that time.

Per media reports, up to 25,000+ now...

10 posted on 03/27/2013 5:35:11 PM PDT by Colofornian (If BoM is everlasting gospel, why no god as exalted man, 3 glorious degrees, men becoming gods, etc?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS; truth_seeker; All
He likes his Mormonism. However, what he posts seems to be true. Mormon history seems quite at variance with what the church projects today. I have not seen his postings refuted.

(And people do need to understand that since I am a descendant from a Mormon polygamist, obviously I might not be in existence were it not for his polygamy...so this is not a simple "stream-lined" exercise of critiquing the "ism" of Mormonism...yet Truthseeker can only condemn the people who descend from Mormon polygamy -- like me -- yet somehow can't bring himself to critique the idea of polygamy itself)

11 posted on 03/27/2013 5:40:40 PM PDT by Colofornian (If BoM is everlasting gospel, why no god as exalted man, 3 glorious degrees, men becoming gods, etc?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: svcw
Where you aware that the business fighting DOMA, Marriott hotel chain (owned by lds) is the biggest contribute to the effort. Of course lds have not stopped polygamy, they just call it celestial marriage.

Thanks for the reminder. (Yes, I did here about porn-industry Marriott doing this...they are also on Life Decision Intl's boycott list for giving $ to Planned Parenthood)

Planned Parenthood boycott list

12 posted on 03/27/2013 6:04:19 PM PDT by Colofornian (If BoM is everlasting gospel, why no god as exalted man, 3 glorious degrees, men becoming gods, etc?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Based on what SLC lds has been saying and who they are supporting and the money being pumped into the defeat DOMA, I am guess there is a move to then next argue for polygamy.
Really once the courts redefine what “marriage” is, they can’t exclude anything thing.


13 posted on 03/27/2013 6:12:47 PM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

An obsession for the truth is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact we perhaps could use a little more of it in a variety of areas...


14 posted on 03/27/2013 6:29:05 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: svcw; All
Based on what SLC lds has been saying and who they are supporting and the money being pumped into the defeat DOMA, I am guess there is a move to then next argue for polygamy.

Well, think about it...This article says that almost HALF of the Lds leaders in the late 19th century were polygamists.

About half of the post-Manifesto Lds "add-another-wife-to-the-club" gang were monogamists PRE-Manifesto!

(It almost seems its illusiveness incites Mormon monogamists to want to venture into illicit/illegal territory!)

For those who think Mormon polygamy was all so "19th century," here was a survey cited by author B. Carmon Hardy -- taken among Mormons taken in 1963:

"Another survey taken in the 1960s found that not only do contemporary church members overwhelmingly disapprove of polygamy but only two in five said they would enter the principle if commanded by the prophets." [B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, University of Illinois Press, p. 339, citing survey published in 1963 by John R. Christiansen, "Contemporary Mormons' Attitudes Toward Polygamous Practices," Journal of Marriage and Family 25 (May 1963): pp. 167-170)].

Now I don't know about you -- but 40% who said "they would enter the principle if commanded by the prophets" in 1963 is pretty high!

The pro-polygamists between circa 1900 and 1963 eroded only 10% -- or less!

It's probably eroded now to less than one-third of Mormons...But if the next Mormon "prophet" told them to adhere to "the principle," how many Mormon men...with harems on their minds in an era like today...would leap at the chance?

Really once the courts redefine what “marriage” is, they can’t exclude anything thing.

Exactly. If everything is marriage, then nothing is.

If the standards are redrawn, there IS no place to arbitrarily "re-draw" them...a single partner is no basis for a boundary then...And relational ties (like siblings, or parent-child) become arbitrary, too.

The LONE standard remaining would be age -- which can be circumvented to some degree via "parental consent."

15 posted on 03/27/2013 6:36:31 PM PDT by Colofornian (If BoM is everlasting gospel, why no god as exalted man, 3 glorious degrees, men becoming gods, etc?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; All

Abraham and Jacob (probably also Isaac) were polygamists .... Christ had the blood of David and Soloman in his veins, both polygamists...

It seems to me that your problem isn’t with LDS Mormons .... But with the foundation of pre-Christianity.

Since Christianity, LDS or not has been tainted with polygamy ..... why don’t you start a new religion ..... you could call it someting like ....

“The Chruch of Anti-Mormons who reject Christs Polygamist Ancestors”


16 posted on 03/27/2013 7:00:35 PM PDT by teppe (... for my God ... for my Family ... for my Country ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teppe
Abraham and Jacob (probably also Isaac) were polygamists

Isaac wasn't. Nothing in the Bible. Totally made up by Joseph Smith, who wrote D&C 132 to convince his first wife, Emma, to go along with him sleeping around.

Jacob became a polygamist ONLY BY DECEPTION from his father-in-law, Laban.

(And here you want to institutionalize a system instigated in the Jacobian household by sheer deception?)

We have no proof Abraham "married" Hagar, 'cause his wife Sarai is the ONLY one who ever referenced Hagar as his "wife" -- and she did that prior to Hagar sleeping with Abraham...by Genesis 21, Sarah is labeling Habar "that slave woman" (not "wife" -- not even "concubine.")

In Genesis 16, AFTER Abraham slept with Hagar (once, for all we know), HE still is referencing Hagar as his wife's slave/servant. And so does the Angel of the Lord in that chapter!

The apostle Paul likewise DOESN'T reference Hagar as his "wife" in a lengthy passage in Gal 4:21-31.

And we know Abraham took Keturah as a "wife" in Gen. 25:1 post Sarah's death...tho it is possible that Keturah may have been a "concubine" while Sarah was still alive.

17 posted on 03/27/2013 7:07:48 PM PDT by Colofornian (If BoM is everlasting gospel, why no god as exalted man, 3 glorious degrees, men becoming gods, etc?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: teppe

Is that really your argument Teppe?

Really?


18 posted on 03/27/2013 7:08:00 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: teppe; All
Christ had the blood of David and Soloman in his veins, both polygamists...

So what? Christ had the blood of a prostitute--Rahab -- in his veins as well? (Or did you conveniently forget to absorb that factoid into your argument?)

Are you going to try to now tell us that prostitution is some kind of "righteous" cottage industry because of Rahab???

We know that Hosea married a prostitute at God's bidding -- Gomer -- who remained a prostitute post-ceremony. Are you going to tell us that because God wanted to provide a parallel situation to a faithless Israel that the "cottage industry" of prostitution has been established by these precedents???

One of the more ridiculous arguments we've heard from your keyboard, Teppe...perhaps you should better realize how Mormon polygamy has corrupted your family morals -- e'en this many generations later!

19 posted on 03/27/2013 7:11:56 PM PDT by Colofornian (If BoM is everlasting gospel, why no god as exalted man, 3 glorious degrees, men becoming gods, etc?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: teppe

Wrong.
It has been explained to you dozens of times, is it an apparent obsession that you continually bring the same thing up over and over again.....there are those who patiently tell you the truth....the question is why you are apparently unwilling to except it.


20 posted on 03/27/2013 7:14:19 PM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: teppe; All
why don’t you start a new religion ..... you could call it someting like .... “The Chruch of Anti-Mormons who reject Christs Polygamist Ancestors”

Teppe, you seem to forget -- or don't care -- that I myself have an Lds polygamist within my genealogy. Perhaps I wouldn't even be here had that not been the case, right?

So on the one hand, people could say: "Who are you to therefore critique polygamy?"

On the other hand, it shows that even at the expense of my very existence, I will speak the truth about moral issues. IoW, if I could "time travel" & witness to Joseph Smith prior to his "Mormonizing" of America ... and thereby help to pre-empt Mormonism in that process...& perhaps pre-empt even my eventual life in so doing...I would do it.

Why?

Apostle Paul, Romans 9: 9 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel.

Teppe, the apostle Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6 that our enemies are NOT "flesh and blood." You and all Mormons are NOT our enemies.

You are of tremendous value! Just like Paul's fellow Jews were of precious value to the apostle Paul!

21 posted on 03/27/2013 7:20:02 PM PDT by Colofornian (If BoM is everlasting gospel, why no god as exalted man, 3 glorious degrees, men becoming gods, etc?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
Obsession, possibly to the extent of mental illness.

I see that at least YOU are still reacting to the memo!



Office of First President & Living Prophet®:

December 11st, 2011

 

URGENT!

Fellow MORMON Freeper Christians!!

I've been getting lots of feedback from those of you on Free Republic (spit) about a certain Colorfornicator (or something like that), who is REALLY giving us a hard time there.
 
Why not try to point out to the uninformed how OBSESSED he seems to be.
 
Let's see if we can tangle him up so much trying to defend his reputation that he'll no longer have as much time to post facts about MORMONism.
 
As always, Tommy M.

22 posted on 03/27/2013 7:49:09 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
I have not seen his postings refuted.

NO need to when he is such a hateful BIGOT!

EVERYone knows that MORMONs are good people to have as neighbors and they have Jesus' name on their buildings; too!

--MormonDude(I can't explain EVERYthing about my faith; but gosh dang it; I sure BELIEVE it!)

23 posted on 03/27/2013 7:51:56 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
So what? Christ had the blood of a prostitute--Rahab

Not to mention that Moabite woman, Ruth.

24 posted on 03/27/2013 7:53:10 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (_.. ._. .. _. _._ __ ___ ._. . ___ ..._ ._ ._.. _ .. _. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22; truth_seeker
An obsession for the truth is not necessarily a bad thing.



25 posted on 03/27/2013 7:54:01 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: teppe
..... why don’t you start a new religion ..... you could call it someting like ....

Good advice; teppe!

YOUR church could be, let's see...


The Group of MORMONs Who Don't BELIEVE the Words of the PROPHET Brigham Young About Our Future Damnation.

26 posted on 03/27/2013 7:56:31 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

Is that all you got?

C. Barkley


27 posted on 03/27/2013 7:57:33 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;

and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,

and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.

Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)

28 posted on 03/27/2013 7:59:44 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

He insists they have underestimated the importance attached to a divine order that would allow males to satisfy their polygamous natures,
_____________________________________________

so thats what was wrong with Joey Smith and Mohammad..


29 posted on 03/27/2013 8:51:23 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

“Obsession, possibly to the extent of mental illness.

Have you considered seeking professional help?”


If you’re a Christian, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you’re not a Christian, you should read the Bible. I happen to use Free Republic heavily as a resource for stuff like this in my dealings with the LDS outside of this website. People get to thinkin I’m an expert. Nah, I just google “[subject] Free Republic” and press enter.

Besides, considering how in every thread, there is always a Mormon apologist who isn’t even a Mormon, it’s obviously needed.


30 posted on 03/27/2013 8:55:18 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: baddog 219

Mormonism is the poor man’s Scientology. I think the tithes for the LDS are less expensive than getting “cleared,” then again I don’t know that for sure.


31 posted on 03/27/2013 8:56:57 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: teppe

FYI

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of ONE wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of ONE wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


32 posted on 03/28/2013 1:02:04 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: teppe
It seems to me that your problem isn’t with LDS Mormons .... But with the foundation of pre-Christianity.

You've been taught well...

33 posted on 03/28/2013 3:47:29 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
so thats what was wrong with Joey Smith and Mohammad..

How DARE you bring up anOTHER 'prophet' in a thread about POLYGAMY!!!



“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

  • Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

  • Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

  • Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

  • As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

  • Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

  • Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

  • Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

  • Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

  • Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, look to Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, whom they consider Divinely appointed, as the rightful successor to Muhammad, and the first imam. (Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

  • Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.


[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.




34 posted on 03/28/2013 3:49:35 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
People get to thinkin I’m an expert.
Nah, I just google “[subject] Free Republic” and press enter.

And - just like magic - ABRACADABRA!!! experts appear!





 
 
Professor Robert Millet        teaching at the Mission Prep Club in 2004  http://newsnet.byu.edu/video/18773/  <-- Complete and uneditted

 
 
Timeline...    Subject...
 
0:59           "Anti-Mormons..."
1:16           "ATTACK the faith you have..."
2:02           "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions..."
3:57           "You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you."


35 posted on 03/28/2013 3:52:31 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans
Mormonism is the poor man’s Scientology. I think the tithes for the LDS are less expensive than getting “cleared,” then again I don’t know that for sure.

"What does it profit a man..."

36 posted on 03/28/2013 3:53:29 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

The Book of MORMON:
 
THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI
CHAPTER 2
 
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

The BIBLE:

1 Timothy 3:2-3
2. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3. not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
 
1 Timothy 3:12
A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
 
Titus 1:6
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

37 posted on 03/28/2013 3:55:03 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
 

Polygamy: How it all got Started


 
 
 
Joe: Hey Emma!   Guess what!?
 
Emma: You KNOW I hate these guessing games! What is it, Dear?
 
Joe: I heard a voice, probably the Lord, tell me I must take other wives.
 
Emma: WHAT!?   You ding bat!  Don't you KNOW what our precious BOOK says?   After all; YOU are the one that translated it!
 
Joe: Books; schmooks.   All I know is I've been COMMANDED to take other wives and you are to OBEY ME!!!
 
 
Emma:      "Though shalt NOT commit ADULTERY!!!"
 
 
Joe: Silly Woman!  You KNOW better than to take things out of CONTEXT!!!
 
 
 
 
 

 
...and the rest is HISTORY...
 

 
 
 
 
 
THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI
CHAPTER 2
 
  24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
  25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
  26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
  27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
  28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
  29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
  30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
  31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
  32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
 

Or even HERE:
 

 1 Timothy 3:2-3
 2.  Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
 3.  not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
 
 
1 Timothy 3:12
   A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
 
 
 Titus 1:6
   An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.



 
 
Emma: That's IT!   I'm LEAVING your sorry *!!!
 
Joe:  DARN you Emma; you were TOLD to accept this!!   Wait!!!   I hear a voice again!!!
 
 


 
THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 132
 
  51–57, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
 
 
  51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
  52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
  53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
  54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
  55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of beternal lives in the eternal worlds.
  56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to brejoice.


38 posted on 03/28/2013 3:56:49 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

THX 1138


39 posted on 03/28/2013 7:15:36 AM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: svcw

40 posted on 03/28/2013 7:21:00 AM PDT by Godzilla (3/7/77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22; teppe
Is that really your argument Teppe? Really?

When you're playing poker and you are holding an off-suit, seven-high, you have to bluff, unless you are smart enough to realize that you have a losing hand and fold.

That argument would be the internet argument equivalent of an off-suit, seven-high hand in poker and should have been folded before you have to reveal your cards.

41 posted on 03/28/2013 10:20:46 AM PDT by CommerceComet (Obama vs. Romney - clear evidence that our nation has been judged by God and found wanting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; teppe

Here is how you do it - yet ANOTHER MORMON boy branching out on his own: http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-religious-extremist-scam-artist-and-accuse-458784578?utm_source=gawker.com&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=recirculation


42 posted on 03/28/2013 2:02:23 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Whoa!


43 posted on 03/29/2013 10:05:58 AM PDT by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Joe hates competition...
44 posted on 03/29/2013 12:18:35 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (8/30/10, the day Truth won.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Joe hates competition...

So do the spineless weasels high atop Salt Lake City!!


Media Letter   
26 June 2008 — Salt Lake City  (http://newsroom.lds.org/additional-resource/media-letter)

*The following is a letter from Elder Lance B. Wickman, General Counsel of the Church to publishers of major newspapers, TV stations and magazines. It was sent out on Tuesday, June 24, 2008.




Recent events have focused the media spotlight on a polygamous sect near San Angelo, Texas, calling itself the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” As you probably know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has absolutely no affiliation with this polygamous sect. Decades ago, the founders of that sect rejected the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were excommunicated, and then started their own religion. To the best of our knowledge, no one at the Texas compound has ever been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Unfortunately, however, some of the media coverage of the recent events in Texas has caused members of the public to confuse the doctrines and members of that group and our church. We have received numerous inquiries from confused members of the public who, by listening to less than careful media reports, have come to a grave misunderstanding about our respective doctrines and faith. Based on these media reports many have erroneously concluded that there is some affiliation between the two – or even worse, that they are one and the same.

Over the years, in a careful effort to distinguish itself, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone to significant lengths to protect its rights in the name of the church and related matters. Specifically, we have obtained registrations for the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Mormon,” “Book of Mormon” and related trade and service marks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and corresponding agencies in a significant number of foreign countries.

We are confident that you are committed to avoiding misleading statements that cause unwarranted confusion and that may disparage or infringe the intellectual property rights discussed above. Accordingly, we respectfully request the following:

  1. As reflected in the AP Style Guide, we ask that you and your organization refrain from referring to members of that polygamous sect as “fundamentalist Mormons” or “fundamentalist” members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  2. We ask that, when reporting about this Texas-based polygamous sect or any other polygamous group, you avoid either explicitly or implicitly any inference that these groups are affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  3. On those occasions when it may be necessary in your reporting to refer to the historical practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that you make very clear that the Church does not condone the practice of polygamy and that it has been forbidden in the Church for over one hundred years. Moreover, we absolutely condemn arranged or forced “marriages” of underage girls to anyone under any circumstances.

Stated simply, we would like to be known and recognized for whom we are and what we believe, and not be inaccurately associated with beliefs and practices that we condemn in the strongest terms. We would be grateful if you could circulate or copy this letter to your editorial staff and to your legal counsel.

We thank you for your consideration of these important matters.

Sincerely,

Lance B. Wickman

General Counsel

45 posted on 03/29/2013 12:57:09 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson