Polygamists Are Not Mormons

It bothers me some that the LDS Church is trying to distance and distinquish itself from the FLDS. The Prophet Joseph Smith, who both the LDS and the FLDS claim as their founder and first Prophet, made this statement:

"...could we all come together with one heart and one mind, in perfect faith, the veil might as well be rent today..."

Why is there such separation between two groups who honor and revere the same modern day Prophet who just asked his followers to "come together"?

http://dayofpraise.blogspot.com/

There are more than one issue being discussed here. I'll address one first and then then next. First, I find it appalling that the Texas child protection department found it necessary to react with such force in the Texas incident. There was no prior investigation to the removal of more than 400 children from their parents. Meanwhile, in inner city America, it's nigh on to impossible to get a horribly abused child removed from obviously abusive parent(s). The reason they went in with armored vehicles, massive weapons and personnel were because this was a religious sect. No matter what you call the sect, religious America should be standing up and rebuking this type of action. Any one of us could find ourselves in this situation due to our faith.
Secondly, the sect that is practicing in Texas is indeed Mormon in the truest sense of Mormonism as set forth by the prophet Joseph Smith. If you look at your own LDS books, specifically the Doctrine and Covenants, section 132, which is Joseph Smith's revelation that makes plural marriage a new and everlasting covenant. It also states that if this is not practiced, one cannot acheive the status of exalted man (i.e. god of your own planet someday). Well, when Utah wanted to become a state, the USA had laws about polygamy. The Mormons wanted to continue to practicing this ordinance as proclaimed by God, but the US would not allow Utah to become a state if the practice continued. So, as stated in the Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declaration - 1, the living prophet of the time, Wilford Woodruff, changed the practice for fear of temples being closed, imprisonment of himself and the twelve and the confiscation of all property owned by Mormons.
Now, if the prophets truly speak the word of God, then the god of Mormonism must be truly weak. Not only that, but if Wilford Woodruff believes he received a revelation from the Lord, then that means that Joseph Smith was a false prophet OR maybe it's Wilford Woodruff who was the false prophet, since the revelations conflict each other. If the god of Mormonism is truly all-powerful, don't you think he would have protected his people if they followed his commandments? I believe this proves the false teachings of Mormonism.

I would hope you would issue a retraction concerning the "public revulsion for what journalists are reporting could be widespread and systemic child abuse" seeing as how no evidence has been found and everything leaked by Texas authorities hasn't born out under scrutiny.(see: www.truthwillprevail.com ) Quit being so bloody concerned about you church's image and become more concerned about these families and the tearing down of our Constitution.

Yikes. it is a ghost town in here. hello.... waiting, like the others, for the echo.....

that video was interesting. what the hell for the irony. the mormon church is the one that operates brigham young university, not the one with the polygamists. did anyone else nearly fall down laughing. jumpin jeebus in a lion house. that was hysterical.

brigham young had how many wives? lets just say, many. the church has tours and dinners and parties at the lion house. how many of brigham youngs wives lived in the lion house? again, lets just settle with, many.

otterson is doing his job and doing it well. he is defending the name 'mormon.' he may scare a few media folks and disassociate from the other group.

however, he is a wimp punk useless weasel if he insists on having his temple pics taken off of a french site while refusing to address why there is any confusion in the first place.

hey otterson. instead of saying dont call us mormon. why dont you go ahead and explain where the split happened. explain brighamites. strangites. and explain all the other groups that came out of smiths creation. explain why the polygamist brigham young was any more mormon than strang or joseph smiths own children. or emma smith for that matter.

otterson. cmon. reach down and gird up your loins a bit and tackle this one with some integrity. get your new leaders there to get some courage and do what is right, let the consequence follow. after all, the truth will get out, so its best to let it come from you and monson, right? it would suck if some obscure newspaper was telling the truth about the origins of many branches of mormonism, and not you. right?

OK, first, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only Mormon church. Mormonism is a movement much bigger than the Brighamite branch. So, reporters are correct to use the term Mormon when refering either to the LDS or FLDS churches. Do, not let the Brighamite branch intimidate you into using the term Mormon as only they see fit.

Second, although it is true that members of the LDS church are not permitted to retain their membership if they are concurrently married to two or more living spouses, they do currently practice a polygamy that extends beyond death. A man can have more than one wife concurrently as long as all but one are dead. These marriages are said to be eternal which means the men in these situations will be polygamous in heaven, and are polygamous now at least the way they view it.

So, all this distancing from the current practice of polygamy the modern LDS church is trying to do is done for public image purposes and is just not telling it like it is.

News reporters, do not let the representatives of the LDS church try to bully you into not using the term Mormon when referring to other churches of the Mormon movement, and do not let them use you to further their less than truthful public image campaign by claiming they have nothing to do with polygamy anymore or do not currently practice it. The whole truth is that an LDS man can be married concurrently to multiple women if the others are dead. He will have them all when he is dead.

I first saw Michael Otterson's video on Youtube somewhere. I was impressed with his ability to communicate his message very clearly and concisely. He is a wonderful public speaker and communicator, no doubt about it. I had not known who he was before seeing the video, by the way, I just appreciate a good speaker when I see one.

I must say I've been incredibly drawn into the FLDS story. Perhaps it is because I have a very good friend who is LDS, or because I am fascinated by cults (here I am referring to FLDS as cult-like, not LDS), or perhaps it is just my fascination with religion in general, or my interest in seeing women and children--and ALL human beings--living free, happy lives. Whatever the reason, I have been seeking out story after story on the FLDS debacle. I do hope that these women and children, if they are being abused, end up in a happier, healthier situation, and that the men, if they are doing any abusing, come around to the danger in their ways and are prosecuted for any crimes they might have committed and are able to change their ways and not repeat past mistakes.

On the topic of Mr. Otterson's comments, though, I am glad he made this video, because I think it is an effective video in terms of communicating to less-informed members of the public the idea that FLDS and LDS are not one and the same.

My experience in the Netherlands and South Africa is that when talking about the Mormons, generally the response is something along the lines of "Oh, the Polygamists".

To say that the name Mormon is associated with "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" may be true in the US of A, but in my experience, it is not so elsewhere.

As a missionary of said church, we were encouraged to dis-associate with the term Mormon and use the term LDS instead.

According to the "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" a Mormon is a "Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of a sect closely related to it". Personally, I believe this is a more accurate definition than the current Church view.

Where to these compunds get the $$$ for the land the temples,computers, etc? Do the men work outside of the compound and return at night? Are these FLDS compounds receiving outside funding? From who?

Did somebody say "boo"?

Just checking in to read Otterson's post on the Polygamists.

Regards.
GB

Paganplace,
Thanks for your response. I think I understand where you're coming from with your compassionate comments. I sincerely wish you well in helping those you help. Thanks for your kindness.

" Parker:

Paganplace,
If you ever want to enter into a serious discussion about the LDS church, I'd be happy to oblige as a life-long member."

I know. You send people door to door. Don't think I wasn't being serious. :)

"Thank you for evidently your effort to ease the pain of some who felt mistreated and who needed a friend. The LDS church definitely has high standards, and is definitely not for everyone since some don't choose to live by those standards."

My religion definitely has the same attitude, though perhaps without the passive-aggression when it comes to implying that LBGT people are somehow deficient when ill-treated in the LDS church.

" What you have observed is very human, predictable behavior, so I don't understand why you think you should criticize the LDS church that it doesn't protect people from getting their feelings hurt and thus being human."

This is about more than "hurt feelings." (That trivializes the suffering causes by some doctinal demands you choose to make. When there is systemic abuse, even the *appearance* of such, I will certainly criticize, in hopes someone'll take it constructively.

I like to think you guys have a lot of people of good heart, but you *do* circle the wagons when anyone says boo to you, and that's not helping those who *do* get hurt.

Whatever you may think of their 'feelings.'

Viejita,
Thanks that you agreed with my point that church and religion is not the same. Currently the newspapers and public of the United States and other countries, including majority of this readers doesn't understand the difference. That's sad.

We have the facts that religious organization, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, several times were invaded and groundlessly were accused by the State of Texas and Federal Government of nonexisted criems. This is the religious persecution 100%.

Paganplace,
If you ever want to enter into a serious discussion about the LDS church, I'd be happy to oblige as a life-long member. Thank you for evidently your effort to ease the pain of some who felt mistreated and who needed a friend. The LDS church definitely has high standards, and is definitely not for everyone since some don't choose to live by those standards. What you have observed is very human, predictable behavior, so I don't understand why you think you should criticize the LDS church that it doesn't protect people from getting their feelings hurt and thus being human. We are all. Have a nice day.

NWGUY111,
(If you happen to wander back here)
It sounds like you view religion as a system of outward beliefs and practices and no core values, but if you were really familiar with people who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you would be aware that what goes on in their heart is far more important to them than what is observed outwardly, so even if you think you have observed outward similarities (which I doubt very much--the difference would be night and day) you don't grasp the core difference at all.

The FLDS is an inwardly directed group, by all appearances. Where are they when the world around them needs their help? It makes me sick to think about how they can claim to believe in the Book of Mormon when their practices have not a smidgen of similarity with Book of Mormon peoples and teachings. They can claim such all they want, but it is a sham and a wonder that anyone in their organization doesn't read and figure out that when their "church" was set up (certainly not by Joseph Smith) the leadership was pulling wool over everyone's eyes who followed. Others need not be so misguided as to believe the two religions have any inward similarity whatsoever.

Gee, can we get back to the original post? I think Otterson's point is that FLDS members may call themselves Mormons and may share some doctrinal aspects with the C of JS of LDS, but they are not members of the same organization.

To call FLDS groups "Mormon" would be like calling Episcopalians Catholics because they share many doctrinal and liturgical practices, and sometimes describe themselves as "English Catholics." The Episcopalians do not answer to the pope in Rome and the Fundamentalist LDS do not answer to the hierarchy in Salt Lake City.

Churches are organizations, not just belief systems, and I agree that it is nice to see the media start to understand the distinction.

....And before anybody jumps on me, I am not implying that Episcopalians in any way resemble Fundamentalist Mormons.

J--O--Z--E--V--Z

Do the world a favor: '
Proceed forward and attempt an airborne fornication at a torus-shaped pastry.

The beauty of that statement lies in the fact that you have not the brain cells necessary to understand it.

Get thee back to prison.

To the Moderator:

I just complained about an Ad Hominem attack on me, and my post was impounded. The attack on me is still there. What is going on?

To the Moderator:

Please, in the interest of decent conversation, delete all of JJ's twisted bigotry.

Gilbert,

I have friends in the gay community. Even here on these blogs. I am not a pervert, nor are they. Your definition of 'pervert' is neolithic.

Paganplace and I have had many discussions here, and a few really good arguments. I came away with a few bruises and a very healthy respect for her. She is my friend, and I deeply resent your attacks on her. This was very, very far from the teachings of Christ on your part.

As Anonymous reminded us, 'Love your neighbor'. Ever read the Gospels?

Arminius

There no doubt in my mind that people who control this blog are hypocrites and the enemies of the free speech in the United States of America, because they does not allow expression of the free opinion of the readers on the Washington Post' website.

Withhold my simple and decent commentary addressed to Mr Michael Otterson from the publication on this site is the obstruction of my right under the United States Constitution.

I'll also note to you, Anonymous, ..I got 'morals.' Morals most self-righteous people with sexual hangups and attendant excuses to demand their sexual way over minors wouldn' last a *day* with.

I fear the 'judgment' of no man's God, and if *my* Gods are gonna *save* me from anything, it's from being a *nervous wreck living in *your* world.*

I tell you children are being hurt.

I do what I can, but this is on *you.*

Sorry. Not all that big a critter, me.

If I can live with that, maybe you better.

Hee, Anonymous. Color me Good Samaritan.

People who get something out of decrying me as a 'pervert' would probably be *really bored* by my actual sex life, (It's good and wonderful and a blessing of the Gods, but I'm a little more arthritic than I might otherwise be without certain niggling details of 'compassionate conservatism.' Still, seriously, if I were having all that much 'empty hedonistic debauchery,' how do you account for me being here?* :) Fact is I'm stuck in a chair too much of my life, these days. If you didn't wanna look at me now, you coulda not discriminated on the health care at any point in the past twenty years. )

...But that never stopped anyone with a righteous vicarious h*** on.

Just folks. Trying to live, that's me and my sweetie.

Nonetheless, I'm reliably informed that some folks always hurt the ones they 'love,' the ones they shouldn't hurt at all.

Beg pardon if it's met my notice.

Gilbert:

I find your comments to paganplace quite inappropriate. I, being a Mormon, may not agree entirely with paganplace's opinions or beliefs at times (and vice-versa), but I chose to not engage in such inappropriate and unneeded name calling. Everyone should be loved and respected, no matter what creed, race, or personal belief. If you deem yourself a christian, then you are not following your own doctrines. For Christ told us to "Love thy neighbor" unconditionally. Even if you are not christian and have morals - we should all respect and love one another. Differing in opinions should not be associated with hate and disrespect.

" Gilbert:

"Paganplace" (what a nasty name you choose, by the way)!"

Oh, Gods, I just *have* to know what flight of imagination led you to *that* conclusion. :)

" To PaganPlace:"

(Note: I would prefer you choose your own name, and direct your posts to me in the text. Any number of people could be saying, "To Paganplace," and I'd have no idea it was different people. )

"PaganPlace, thanks for the reply. You will note when I responded that I did not venture a response to your claim that Mormons produce a relatively large number of abuse victims. I know personally several victims of abuse from Mormon environments and people and did not disagree that it happens."

Personally, like I said, it's an anecdotal figure. But to me a heck of one, proportionate to the population, particularly in areas far from big Mormon populations. Refugees, yes, but a lot of refugees.

Too big a proportion to ignore, in my mind, inasmuch as it's my affair, ...which basically amounts to telling some Mormons, "Before you issue more denials, you really oughtta look at this, even if you think it's just folks oppressing a minority."

" Whether one can claim that it happens among Mormons with greater frequency than other groups or the general population, as you have claimed for both Mormons and Catholics, I simply don't know."

Any is too many, to begin with. But there are many. And it does appear systemic and a dark side of that theology that really needs attending to, to say the least.

"It's beside the point of my response. I also hear from my friends in the gay community similar claims about large numbers of Mormon homosexuals."

That seems to be a bit of a backhanded mercy about Mormon theology: a lot of the gay kids seem to figure out just how unwanted they are right quick, instead of things being more drawn-out. Unfortunately, the separation is more traumatic, and attended by things that tend to cause people to wind up in the kind of scenes people insist *are* 'The Gay Community.'

"I think the perception about numbers "

Is a perception about numbers. This is no place to explain where I got the nuanced understanding, ... if your Church wants to do something about it at the source, you'll have to find your own.

The victims are there. And the systems. You mention one:

" It is also tough to say of course with any kind of certainty what actual numbers are, particularly among a culture where abuse is strongly taboo, so that victims feel pressure not to self-report."

Also some enablers feel pressure to enable.

You can see it right here on these threads, people insisting it can't possibly be happening, and anyone who says so can't be Christian or Mormon...

You've loaded a lot on that identity, Eyes open, folks, that's all. The universe has a way of disregarding excuses.

Jonovich:

"We don't label Lutherans (and other Protestants) as being members of a "breakaway Catholic sect."

This is a fair enough observation. But:

"And we shouldn't label polygamists as members of a "breakaway Mormon sect." Each is its own distinct entity." "

This is perhaps not, so much. There are a lot of sects of Lutherans. Some of em don't like each other very much and are pretty virulently opposed to each other on who's supposed to be in charge, but they're all still basically Lutherans, and most call themselves such: You could really see this in a similar way without being totally-unfair.

This isn't to try and smear the LDS mainstream as condoning what this group in Texas did, it's just that there is a clear commonality, ...the mainstream simply made another ruling on it without disavowing its own history or really showing *why* they changed it. Etc etc.

I think like so many things about which the Catholic church has said, 'We aren't about this anymore,' in regards to, ...only to have the stuff remain there till, say, a more conservative Pope comes along to reactivate it.

Sometimes the stuff the LDS establishment says is similarly un-reassuring.

PaganPlace, thanks for the reply. You will note when I responded that I did not venture a response to your claim that Mormons produce a relatively large number of abuse victims. I know personally several victims of abuse from Mormon environments and people and did not disagree that it happens. Whether one can claim that it happens among Mormons with greater frequency than other groups or the general population, as you have claimed for both Mormons and Catholics, I simply don't know. It's beside the point of my response. I also hear from my friends in the gay community similar claims about large numbers of Mormon homosexuals. I think the perception about numbers is driven in part by the impact of meeting someone whose experience contradicts the public face projected by a group with whom one is not familiar. "I just met a Mormon abuse victim. And there's another one. There are a lot!" Of course I don't mean to belittle the experience of any victims you've worked with, but this effect can inflate perceptions especially if you happen to work with victims. It is also tough to say of course with any kind of certainty what actual numbers are, particularly among a culture where abuse is strongly taboo, so that victims feel pressure not to self-report.

What can be assessed with relative accuracy is how the church machinery works in response. As indicated before, the church discipline machinery within the Mormon Church is dramatically different from that outlined in numerous class action lawsuits against Catholic dioceses. Of course the numbers are much smaller because there are fewer Mormons and because there are fewer employees of the Mormon Church given the lay clergy. What you find however is that there is also a machinery that is relatively aggressive at excommunicating and disfellowshipping people, especially people serving in influential positions. My bishop was promptly excommunicated after getting busted in a sting. Members of other congregations I've been in have been excommunicated for adultery. If sex is involved, consensual or not, church policy is very clear and local discretion is more limited than one would think. Of course systems do not always work as designed, but, as pointed out before, on the whole the system is incomparable to the Catholic class actions of the past 10-15 years. Some cases exist, generally on an individual basis, but no similar litigation record of the character and scale dealt with by my Catholic colleagues exists for the Mormon Church. This may mean something goes unaddressed longer because a strongly punitive system focused on deterrence discourages confession. Based on my experience, it is very hard to see how this could be called a system that fosters abuse by covering it up or by suppressing reports of abuse. If members of the church are shunning victims because of the abuse, that is wrong and church members must improve and I think church leaders try to address it. Compassion toward abuse victims is a favorite topic of Elder Richard G. Scott in addresses to the church's General Conference.

"Of the thousand of similarities, there are fundamentally only two or three essential differences between the two churches."

With the above statement, you might as well be talking about the Lutherans and the Catholics. After all, those two distinct and separate religions share "thousands of similarities" and have only a few essential differences. For that matter, you might as well be talking about the Catholics and the Mormons!

We don't label Lutherans (and other Protestants) as being members of a "breakaway Catholic sect." And we shouldn't label polygamists as members of a "breakaway Mormon sect." Each is its own distinct entity.

The Mormons and the polygamists may share a common heritage, but so do the Catholics and the Protestants, and (again) we don't go around calling the Protestants "breakaway Catholics."

The term "Mormon" today refers to one specific religious group: members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (N.B. the commonly known "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" or "Mormon missionaries").

Mormons are not polygamists, and polygamists are not Mormons -- just as Protestants are not Catholics, despite their shared heritage, doctrines, beliefs, scripture, etc. Any attempt to draw the two groups together serves only to create confusion.

Jon

Sadly, whoever's addressing me, it's not just 'conjecture' on my part. My anecdotal sample is a bit biased cause I've spent much of my life helping abuse victims, but there are a *lot* of em coming out of Utah. A lot.

It's not to single you guys out, but just to mention the denials and distancing aren't always the most reassuring. It's a problem of authoritarian schemes: once people give up a certain measure of control and responsibility, darn near anyone could suborn that conditioning for their own purposes.

"We'll stop calling them Mormons
when LDS stop calling themselves Christians"

Christ will have you but not me? That's not the way it seemed when I asked for his saving power in my life.

"Sometimes, the LDS Church seems more to mirror the Catholics, ...producing a lot of abuse victims and making institutional denials that the *system* could have anything to do with it."

Just a quick reply to this conjecture. Unlike the Catholic Church, the LDS Church in the whole makes _very_ active use of disfellowshipment and excommunication proceedings in response to abuse. Excommunication is regarded as a remedial tool for the transgressor and as a means of protecting the church's integrity. Plural marriage and pedophilia are the fastest tickets out of the church available, especially if one holds a role in the lay clergy.

Beyond the present vs. past practice of polygamy, to me the most important difference between modern, mainline Mormonism and what's being discovered on the FLDS compound in Texas is the use of inborn brides as a kind of chit to reward loyalty, and the apparent introduction of that into the group's practices within their places of worship. I am surprised that the Salt Lake City church has not figuratively thrown open the doors of the temple to remind the public of what happens there. If a lot gets made of the marriage beds starting to appear in the press, expect that kind of campaign.

From outside, I'd say the FLDS looks like a Mormon splinter sect to *me,* not that the others don't have every right to say they're getting it all wrong, and condemn the abuse inherent, I guess.

But the differences between the two seem mostly about disagreements on authorities and how to interpret basically the same stuff.

So happens I come from an oft-maligned group, myself, ...but when defamation happens, it'snot about real people taking Pagan teachings and being 'apostate' about it.... most of the time, the 'accused' don't exist, save in a would-be-witch-hunter's mind, and the guilt's by someone else's association with these phantoms.

Sometimes, someone will try and use the notion of Wiccan or other Pagan religion as an excuse for a crime or as bait for victims, but they generally have demonstrably-little understanding or agreement with even the most common and general of Pagan community values: in fact, it usually seems they learned more about what they were faking from Jack Chick comics than from the Pagan communities they generally *hide* from: ie, the folks who can know they're frauds in a second and will take appropriate action.

Sometimes, the LDS Church seems more to mirror the Catholics, ...producing a lot of abuse victims and making institutional denials that the *system* could have anything to do with it.

Most people get sucked into authoritarian cults, not because of where they *differ* from more mainstream authorities, but because they *use* the more mainstream teachings to suck people in and then start making more and more demands.

It starts with reasonable-sounding propositions and 'Bible Study,' and the alienation from the rest of the world, and entrapment comes in a bit later.

Smaller operators can do this *within* and under the *cover* of institutional denials and coverups, too, as the Catholics have found. And others are bound to.

No religious community or institution wants to admit they might be supporting some bad things, however unintentionally, but it *happens,* and that's a responsibility that comes along with what you take upon yourselves to teach.

For all of us, individual freedom and pluralistic openness are the basis of a strong defense against abuse and exploitation in our society. Fear and secrecy are the cloaks of the abuser.

It is "Mormon" to take multiple wives and live in the desert in defiance of a hostile public and government. It is also "Mormon" to repudiate the practice and prosecute against it aggressively as a way to erase the errors of the past. The only really useful distinction is in how the breakoff sect twisted the beliefs and practice of their church after their founders were excommunicated. Please don't pretend they aren't related to in any historical or doctrinal way. I expect a more honest and defensible approach from the PR department of my latter-day version of the "Mormon" church.

How can you decide that some angelic revelations to Joseph Smith are valid and others are not? I'll let his words do the talking:

"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction."

If Mormons believe what Smith said, what do they make of this?

We'll stop calling them Mormons
when LDS stop calling themselves Christians

I disagree. It depends on your point of view. If you are a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) you still may choose to call yourself a Mormon. Not only do you have this right, but if you look closely at the two churches and what they have in common, it may be intellectually dishonest not to use the term 'Mormon' to describe the members of both churches and the dogma they each promulgate.

For example, as a faithful FLDS adherent you believe in the same canon of scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), you believe Joseph Smith restored the true Church of Jesus Christ to the earth in 1830. You believe God restored his Priesthood authority to the earth, beginning with the establishment of His Church, also in 1830. You believe God speaks today to his children on earth through an annointed Prophet who has been given the Priesthood keys and the authority to act and speak on God's behalf. Both churches believe in the three degrees of heaven (Telestial, Terrestial and Celestial.) The similarities between the theology of the two religions are too many to enumerate.

In fact, if you sat in either church's weekly Sacrament meetings you might swear you were sitting in the identical church service meeting of the other. Lay clergy (Bishops) lead Ward congregations, most of the music is identical, the prayers are similar, etc.

Of the thousand of similarities, there are fundamentally only two or three essential differences between the two churches: the role of plural marriage or polygamy, the United Order (owning property in common) and which church posesses the divine role as the one and only true restored Church of Jesus Christ. The FLDS believe that when the LDS church renounced polygamy in 1890, they went astray and abdicated their role as the Latter-day Restored Church of Jesus Christ.

A final note: LDS remain committed to the ideal of plural marriage, the principal upon which the practice of polygamy stands. Plural marriage is revered in both LDS and FLDS communities as divinely inspired and sound doctrine. The only difference is the LDS are taught that plural marriage (polygamy) is reserved for the next life, whereas the FLDS believe the principal of plural marriage was never renounced and with the blessing of the FLDS prophet, may be practiced today in mortality, as well as in the next life.

In summary, there seems to be much more in common between the two churches than is different. The uncanny similaries raise a few questions: Why is polygamy or plural marriage such a divinely inspired doctrine? What kind of life is God believed to live? Does God really live a plural marriage lifestyle? Will faithful LDS or FLDS be permitted (or conscripted) to live a polygamous lifestyle after death? And, perhaps the most important: does the belief that the practice of polygamy in the next life is divinely inspired conflict with the modern and widely accepted viewpoint that polygamy in today's world is demonstrated to be highly corrosive and damaging; and leads to an abusive environment for women and children?

Michael Otterson, you are a lier: there never was a "polygamist sect compound" in Eldorado, Texas.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ fo Latter Day Saints is the Mormon Church and not a "polygamist sect".

What you are said of that Church is pure SLANDER (LIBEL) on the members of this Church. Keep that in the mind, man!

This is absolutely true. Mormons (aka members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)are not Polygamists. Although, it is true that in the past (literally over a hundred years ago) we have practiced polygamy, we do NOT do so today. It seems that either out of ignorance or because groups or individuals want to defame the name of the Church the idea that Mormons practice polygamy has stayed. To find out more information I would invite you to visit either www.lds.org or www.mormon.org