Comments (148)

The Polygamy Issue:

In regards to the LDS in Utah: "Does polygamy still exist in Utah? You bet it does. Utah was admitted to the Union in 1896 but only under the condition that the Mormon Church ban polygamy, which they agreed to do. The Mormon Church remains opposed to polygamy to this day and immediately excommunicates any member who is discovered to be practicing polygamy. There are several ultra-orthodox offshoots of the Mormon Church though, especially in rural parts of Utah, which quietly practice polygamy today basically under a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Most polygamists just want to be left alone and don't want notoriety."

It should also be noted that every member of the LDS has a years supply of food in their pantry. That's pretty smart in my book.

What's really wrong are the LDS members who categoricaly deny that polygamy still exists.

What's even scarier are the states where with the parents permission a girl as young as 13 can be married off in a prearranged marriage.Yikes! These loopholes need to be closed.

It was enivetible that eventually church and state would have a showdown. Did the framemakers of our constitution see this one coming? I hardly doubt it.

This is really disturbing. I'm sure you've all read about the polygamist sect being raided................ I'm glad, because these people are dangerous. I don't care that they tuck themselves away from the rest of society and dress in outdated clothes, but what bothers me is the abuse of women and children. They are completely brainwashed. Its almost like the Koresh cult all over again. Some guy proclaims that God speaks through him yadda yadda yadda and he ends up sleeping with every submissive creature on two legs. What's even more disturbing is that five of the girls (younger than 18) are pregnant or have children. Some of the "adults" with children may in fact be juvies or may have had children when they were younger than 18. The problem is that when these people joined they were given different ages and names making it difficult for exact identification. The state should put the kids in foster care for sure. Give them an opportunity to have a life full of options and goals. Not have someone telling them what they need to do. Their parents cannot clearly take care of them. Too many mouths to feed makes it hard to give each child the individualized attention they deserve. THEY'RE a bunch of breeding machines. ~ 130 children are under the age of 4 Spanning the ages of 6 mos to 17. http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_03/mormum2AP1504_468x315.jpg CONDOMS CONDOMS CONDOMS CONDOMS, BIRTH CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL.

taken from www.yourthreecents.com

Harold:
I would say the woman you know is the exception, rather than the rule. Also, the previous comment to which you were responding was asking how these girls became impregnated without sexual intercourse as you claim.

Paganplace, you talking such a hystrical nonsense about the fourteen years aged pregant women because you never see a woman who has been pregant at age of 13 and give the birth also at age of 13 to a very healthy baby-girl. I did. The woman became a perfect mother for another FIVE healthy children after first pergancy. No problem with her body and her mind at all since her early womanhood (motherhood). Therefore, don't talk silly staff about early womanhood. You looks just as one of countless fools all around this "intelligent" country.

Not to mention that if there *weren't* any sex going on, (I know sometimes that's all certain folks care about,) ...it doesn't mean kids still aren't being basically enslaved for life at tender young ages. That's really just not acceptable in a free country.

Umm, Harold?

"Logically, man can spiritually marry girl of any age, or woman can marry boy of any age, but without any sexual activities between them. Even any boy can spiritually marry any girl without any sexual activity.

"From such consideration it is easy to comprehend that no member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has had sexual act with any of spiritual wife, if any of them existed in said Church. "

...Do a bunch of girls impregnated at fourteen count? Or has there been a mess of miracles?

Hi, Losangeles:

...not to interrupt Edgar demonstrating the problem, here, but:

"Hi, PaganPlace. I meant only the first paragraph (after the quote) of my last comment to be addressed to you. The rest I meant for everybody here. I enjoy your comments. They are fair-minded and refreshingly free of vitriol. What beliefs are considered pagan these days? Does Shinto count? How about traditional Native American or Polynesian belief systems?"

Well, certainly in the 'small P' sense of 'pagan,' that's how they might be described, but they generally won't thank you for it. :)

In a broad sense, we do have a lot in common with these types of traditions, especially in relation to people of 'book' religions: there are some key differences in belief and structure and worldview that we share: notably not believing in *belief itself* in the same way, not thinking much of creeds and authorities, particularly ones which contradict human experience or separate spirit from the living world.

Pagan with a capital P generally refers to revivals (and to some extent survivals) of pre-Christian European traditions... our ancient Gods generally viewed through more modern practices and in a lot of ways, assuredly a more modern theology about it all. This is somewhat of necessity, as some folks went pretty well out of their way to *destroy* the ancient practices, but you can't destroy the Gods or our connection to Them, so we rebuild, maybe a bit more free than some of cultural inertia that can lead to problems with modernization and getting along in such a world as we have now.

But it's part of why we don't go around proselytizing for our Gods, many of us know from personal experience They can do Their own recruiting, thanks very much; the human spirit doesn't need to be told by a book to, say, reincarnate and learn, nor can it be stopped from such. Maybe we've learned from experience what really endures.

It also is rooted in a belief we should nurture our essential goodness, rather than try and 'fight' or 'control' some 'essential badness,' ..and as a result, "It's the will of the Goddess" or "The God made me do it" isn't in our spiritual 'language.'

Saves a lot of trouble with 'authorities' and 'cults of personality,' that way.

We're responsible for our intentions and actions, and for an awareness of their effects, not a legalistic process of trying to excuse or compel them.

Which is kind of why what the likes of Edgar say about what spurred this discussion just don't wash.

For our part, we see our worldviews as compatible with most worldwide indigenous faiths, considering them as likely to be other sincere views of the same world... Book religions, of course, tend to go out of their way to contradict everyone else, to the result of much grief and alienation, is how we tend to view it.

And, generally, this applies to even book religions, probably apart from the fact we don't believe books have some magic power to really define the world. Kind of like the early Christians were considered *atheists* for disbelieving in all Gods... with one exception. :)

These are things made by, generally, *men,* and we're responsible for them and what we do with them, you see.

We believe that a diversity of views of the world is a *good* thing, not something to try and destroy, ...but if someone does something unjust or harmful and says, 'God Wills It,' we just say, 'That's what *you* say.'

One of the questions about Mormonism related to spiritual marriages. Because such marriages are spiritual, they perhaps should not be considered as sexually related. What's make people outside of Mormon religion think that spiritual marriage necessarily means performance of sexual activities between man and woman? Even in actual legal marriage man not necessarily engaged in sexual activity with woman, and their official titles, "husband" and "wife" does not required them to have sexual activities. They might be bond to each other socially or psychologically, but not sexually.

Logically, man can spiritually marry girl of any age, or woman can marry boy of any age, but without any sexual activities between them. Even any boy can spiritually marry any girl without any sexual activity.

From such consideration it is easy to comprehend that no member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has had sexual act with any of spiritual wife, if any of them existed in said Church.

However, if any man was engaged in sexual activity with person below the age of 16, then such conduct might be illegal in the Texas. But this shall be proved without any reasonable doubt in the court of law. So far nothing like that was done, and no sexual abuse take place in the Church.

Mr. "LOSANGELES_MORMON_GUY" you said: "I'm very glad law enforcement is finally going after that FLDS group."

If that's true, you are not a Mormon, not a Christian man. No Christian person will be glad in the case when whole commuinity of Mormons in Eldorado suffering from the hands of government of Texas. Obviously you are evil person, because you happy when other human beings, especially 416 children, suffering from the authorities of State of Texas.

frank burns: "What, The Hand of God did not intervene and pull those evil law enforcement officers away from the doors??? Where is Jehovah where you need Him nowadays? Back in Ezekial's day he would have done something, by golly."

I'm very glad law enforcement is finally going after that FLDS group. Should have done it long ago. But the argument you use has an inauspicious pedigree. It sounds a lot like Matthew 27, "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God."

An Ezekiel reference might be made to fit, but in a different way. If you remember, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel all prophesied that Babylon would destroy the kingdom of Judah unless they repented. Ezekiel, in fact, prophesied very specifically about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and David all lived to see these prophecies fulfilled. So it would be more accurate to say that Jehovah is doing what he has always done as exemplified in the writings of Ezekiel. Still, it might be safer to leave statements about divine punishment to the Pat Robertsons of the world. :-)

Hi, PaganPlace. I meant only the first paragraph (after the quote) of my last comment to be addressed to you. The rest I meant for everybody here. I enjoy your comments. They are fair-minded and refreshingly free of vitriol. What beliefs are considered pagan these days? Does Shinto count? How about traditional Native American or Polynesian belief systems?

People such as Edgar serve to highlight the importance of the separation of church and state. As Americans we cannot capitulate to the demands of such religious extremists or they will serve to undermine this republic. Small concessions, such as Harvard College banning males from one of their gyms for certain hours due to the outcry of a handful of muslim students, are only the beginning of a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to shira courts being forced upon us.

Quote:

"When all other efforts to open the temple failed, about 57 men from the church stood in a circle around the building and watched as a SWAT team broke down the doors, Captain Caver said. The sect members sunk to their knees in prayer, some sobbing, and one young man rushed to intervene."

What, The Hand of God did not intervene and pull those evil law enforcement officers away from the doors??? Where is Jehovah where you need Him nowadays? Back in Ezekial's day he would have done something, by golly.

Pam, you mentioned that "gay people seek the right to marry". Those people is condemned in Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, etc. There no chance for them to be married because they are against the God's will and standing in violation of Creation. They have delusions on marriage. Only degraded countries -- like Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and So. Africa -- permitting them to do the marriage on the governmental level. Over 195 countries reject that nonsense. All churches of world’s religions reject that nonsense. Married homosexualists could not enter in such noble and ancient country as Iran, but married heterosexuals can - from any country of the world. That's the difference on the international level. 195 countries do not recognize homosexualistic marriages. In European Union 23 country does not recognize marriage of homosexualists. That's the fact

I would also like to voice a concern that I have regarding Warren Jeff's association with the online networking site, Facebook. Although in jail, he continues to communication (most likely through direct descendants or close followers) through the popular website. They will continue to prey on young girls and recruite. This is tragic for our communities.

Kj, your ignorant comment, "This is not much different from the way that Mormons refer to their church as Christian whereas many of us mainstream Christians beg to differ" is the quintessence and epitomy of an uneducated stance, and is a demonstration of survile submissiviness to the misinformed and erroneous opinions of press, bigots, and fools who choose to ignore the facts.

Here is several different defintions of christianity to help elucidate and eradicate the blindness which has captured many, including yourself.

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

–noun 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

11. a male given name.

It's clear by the defintions given that Mormons are chrisitian in every sense of the word. In fact, they embrace the true doctorine of Jesus Christ--the very doctrine that was pure 2000 years ago but has been corupted, convoluted and changed through out the ages by the very organizations that now call mormons non-christians (which from your words, it sounds like yours is one of them). Joseph Smith was instrument in restoring the true doctrines of Christ. Anyone who follows those restored teachings are truely Christ like and truely Christians.

Now with that said I'd like to see you attempt to explain and justify your ingnorant, foolish statement "...many of us mainstream Christians beg to differ." The only thing you should be begging for is an education, one that contains facts.

Edgar wrote:
"Pam, girls can't say "no" because they are underaged and parents decide for them what is proper for them in the matter of marriages, and that's legal in USA."

NOT true.
I know there are benighted countries where this is acceptable, but this isn't one of them.

You're leaving something out, Edgar - it's with the consent of the parents *and* the minor concerned, and this is a legal matter - it has to be court approved and it has to be a *legal* marriage - not a "spiritual" marriage done in secret behind the closed doors of the temple.

You've ignored everything I said before - these girls aren't legally married and they are not above the age of consent to have sex - particularly not with men several times their age.

No matter which way you turn it, these men are breaking the law. The girls are slaves. The whole thing is rotten to the core.

Pam, girls can't say "no" because they are underaged and parents decide for them what is proper for them in the matter of marriages, and that's legal in USA. The priest does not have power to tell parents what to do, and he only performs ceremonial of marriage. Such ceremonials could be performed by him in any state of this country which permists marriage for persons below age of 14. There is plenty of such states in the Union. Just take the search engine on the Internet and you will see a lot of them.

I think you are over-emotional and under the influence of the news which parroting the Texas officials' imaginative and stupidly criminalized version. Its pity that press media in the USA acting as the sequence to the governmenal conduct without any critical reason. The press looks like perfectly sujugated cow to the master-mind of the US government. Sorry, but that's what I observing for far from hundrends newspapers on the net.

Warren Jeffs is communicating via Facebook???!

In the United States of America we know several States where marriage of man to women at age of 13 or lower permitted with consent of parents - New Hampshire and New Jersey, Kansas, for example. That's the fact. In Arizona possible for man marry woman of age 15 years with consent of parents. In case of members of the Mormon church it is easy thing to do, because parents like the idea of early marriage for females. I don't know about the boys. Boys usually easily misbehaving and parents dislike the idea marriage boys with girls, and preferred marry their daughters to mature men, that's proper way to go. Adam was older then Eva so shall be the way for every marriage. There no force at all, just parental guidance govern the marriage patterns on the start.

Edgar,
I don't know what country you come from, but from your writing style, I suspect it to be one where women have few rights. This is the USA.

Marriage, whether performed in a church or a civil ceremony, is not just the purview of religion - it has legal ramifications as well. (This, BTW, is why gay people seek the right to marry).

The members of this sect don't *legally* marry after the first wife - they marry "spiritually."

The idea behind this is to get around the laws against polygamy.

However, when you are not *legally* married to a female below the legal age of consent, but are having sexual relations with her, you are breaking a whole new set of laws.

These men can't have it both ways - they are either committing statutory rape, or they are polygamists.

Further, in none of the states where these people have lived, is 14 or 15 considered old enough to consent.

So, they have no legal leg to stand on. But this isn't why so many of us are outraged (and you should be, too) - it's because these girls have no say in *any* of it. They are forcibly "married" to these much older men because the church leader claims that God has told him that is how it should be. Their wishes do not enter into it.

Perhaps in your country this is considered OK, but not here. Here, it is rape, and it is abhorrent.

Come on, Anonymous, you misconstrue what people are saying about this. There are legitimate questions of whether certain styles of polygamy lead to abuse situations, etc etc, I think we've all duly deplored acts of child rape and abuse.

And, well, Thanks, Losangeles. It's funny, it always seemed the Mormon church was rather preoccupied with the specificities of your afterlife, and all. It always seems to get referred to, after all when justifying various things.

And, no, I don't think you're crazy for having a religious experience or whatnot... I've got a pretty deep religious life, myself, (It's not the custom of Wiccans to run around 'witnessing' about tat sort of thing, for various reasons, so I'll leave it there.) But my religion doesn't teach people they're 'losers' or damned and needing saving by, of course, the same religion that says this. Doing OK, thanks.

And, Edgar, I don't even know where to start, with you. :) Marriage is a civil contract, whatever religious implications you may attach to it.

And these certainly don't make it legal or OK for a bunch of underaged women to be forced into 'marriages' that don't even protect them, then say it's not 'rape' cause they're 'married.' They're too young to even have a *say* in the matter, whatever you like to call it.

Nobody asserting that the US Constitution protects their right to rape underage girls because it allows for freedom of religion. That's absolute nonsense.

The marriage to certain females of various ages never means to be a rape. There are about two hundred different countries where marriage of males to females permitted below the age of 18 years. The conditions are different from country to country, so and in the USA we have 50 States and several Territories where marriages males permitted to females below the age of 18 years.

Texas limits early marriages to age 16, other states to 14 or lower ages. Human beings are different by their physiologies and cultures.

The institute of marriage existed thousands years, and historically was religiously sanctioned, followed by the "civil" marriages.

Marriage is not the business of the state, but of the church.

Rape is not existed in marriage, but outside it. That's the fact.

Whole meaning of the marriage related to reproduction? if it is physiologically possible. That's was God's Will, nothing else. It is not for simple pleasure, but for God's purpose.

Freedom of religion does not means the freedom of sexual orgy. Religion is about the obedience to God's Will, and everything else is sequential.

Another point in this subject, and an important one. The early marriages male members to the female members of said church might been conducted not in the Texas, but in other States of this country, where the early marriages is permitted by the state’s laws, even from the age of females below age of 14. Priest of the church could travel in other states with the couple to perform the ceremonial of marriages. In this case no Texas law ever was violated and all accusation from the government is false, derived from the evil imagination of its governmental agents.

Let’s not forget that the temple of this church was build between 2003 and 2006, and females arrived in the State of Texas from other States of this country. They were married in other States – not in the State of Texas, before their arrival in the compound of their religious organization, which has been established and incorporated somewhat about in 1940 in two States – in Arizona and Utah. That’s fundamentally important matters, which practically all press and government ignored.

If the FLDS is correct in asserting that the US Constitution protects their right to rape underage girls because it allows for freedom of religion, then it stands to reason that the terrorists that were responsible for 9-11 were fully justified because they believed it was required of their religion. Their lawyer might want to review his notes from class. The freedom to practice your religion does not excuse you from laws with which you disagree.

Not really, Patrick.

I think black people might become great Mormons in the future. Is there Mormon churches in Africa?
Mormons should united against governmental persecutions all over the world.

Senator,
The previous version of the Mormon Bible states, 'The evil people will be marked with burned skin."

Racist enough for you now?

Patrick

Anonymous, you talking the fantasy, the hallucinatiions. There never was rape of any child or any sexual abuse in Mormon church. Don't make up the false issue!

the issue is not polygame, ITS CHILD RAPE. all you leftist loonies had your communes with the "we will share everything" from the 60's. you live with two or 3 others and share.
the issue is making children have sex with other full grown men. that is rape and that is the problem.

Paganplace:
"But, I'm honstly curious how Mormons work this: can widows remarry? Do they get to keep all spouses in the Mormon afterlife, or do they get divvied up?"

Widows and widowers can remarry. We figure it all gets sorted out properly later. Among Mormons, there are all kinds of opinions about how exactly things are arranged, but for the most part, we don't worry about it.

We believe God to be kind and just, his nature proven to us in the gift of his Son. He isn't out to get us and no one gets condemned on technicalities. (For example, no one gets condemned just because they are born in a time or place with no knowledge of Jesus Christ. No child is condemned for dying before baptism.) Also, God isn't going to force anyone to be in a miserable marriage forever. As we say, "There is no compulsion in heaven." So we trust that He will work everything out in such a way that everyone will be happy.

We are taught of a God who is infinitely kind and compassionate. He sent his Son to suffer and die for us. Recently I felt despondent, really low, and as I considered how defeated I was, I remembered that Jesus suffered and died for losers like me. As I thought of this, the love of God flowed into my heart and healed me. To me, it was a miracle, the Lord intervening in my life. Millions of people from many faiths have had similar experiences, no doubt including many who are reading this. We cannot prove to you that we are not crazy or deluded. It's nothing that can be settled by proof or debate, only by personal experience.

God calls everyone to come to Him and receive his love. We approach Him through faith and in humility, and he communes with us through His Spirit. This is a path that anyone can follow. In this most important of endeavors, the rich and well-educated have no advantage. If we seek Him with true intent, when the time is right, He will answer.

Well, any senses of poetic justice aside, somehow I have accumulated this notion that male-on-male rape in institutions somehow doesn't make girls and juveniles any safer.

Yaknow, FWIW.

"In Mormon Theology "plural marriage" (polygamy) is still held as a sacred eternal Mormon principal (law) and in fact, will be practiced by many who attain the "Celestial Kingdom", or the highest degree in heaven, according to Mormon Theology.

In fact, men, whose wives have passed on, may be sealed to a 2nd wife in an LDS Temple (or even a third, should the 2nd wife pass on, too.)"

Well, not to interrupt the vitriol about a system that does, in fact, seem to turn out rather abusive a lot, I find this interesting.

It seemed to me to be of great concern to Catholics, who had sort of a mixed message about marriage and being widowed and all that, mostly by not thinking about women at all, saying, 'Till Death Do Us part,' and having some notion of eternities and the like, nonetheless. Always seemed very kludged to me, as it was debated.

But, I'm honstly curious how Mormons work this: can widows remarry? Do they get to keep all spouses in the Mormon afterlife, or do they get divvied up?

To me, admittedly, it seems like one of the kinds of logistical absurdities that tend to crop up if one believes that after this life an eternal ordered stasis must result.

"Any temple ceremony is considered to have eternal implications, especially when the words "for time and all eternity" are uttered as part of the ceremony."

It seems to me that saying *that* has much to do with why even if the *practice* is verboten, Mormonism still seems to view women this way.

If not other Christian groups.

THERE IS NOTHING DESCENDED FROM JOSEPH SMITH THAT IS NOT A CULT.

Further, to say that the SLC crowd outlawed polygamy is misleading is not an outright lie.

First of all, it was the US Military that convinced the "profit" (sp) to go have a little chit-chat with God.

Fortunately for those seeking legitimacy, statehood, etc., the profit reported that God had directed him to stop the cult from practicing polygamy.

As you can read in today's papers, some did and some did not.

They continue to teach that polygamy is a "divine state". Divine for whom?

Sincerely,
Providence Candlelight

This response is clearly a mockery of those calling for the recant.

KENNETH,

Your comment clearly indicating that you are revengeful and evilishly minded person, who have nothing to do with Christianity, as well as with the present systems of laws of any state of our country under the United States Constitution. It is pity that your mind set on evil instead of justice in accordance with laws of this country, along with the ethics of every religion on this planet Earth.

Fate, I cannot answer all you questions because this site is censored.

What you do not understand is that I perfectly aware of the federal officer's modus operandi and how they conduct their field's operations by reading copies of various federal files, besides the great deal of books on the federal laws.

Apparently you never know the attorney's activities in the court. It is the war - pitiless and relentless. War of words and logics. That's the confrontation. There even possibilities to kick out the judge from the case, if the judge make wrong move. That's the confrontation. Study the law and then you will understand my point.

I wrote of the actions before, however, sensor removed it from the site. There no need for repeat. I let it go.

Mark, I agree with you. Your arguments are perfect.

Raul wrote: "Recently the Federal Government entered into the theater - the FBI got warrant from the Federal District court via the US Attorney on search of the property of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This action effectively paralyzed activities in the local Texas' district court. As I said before, feds will entered into the game, because the do have their own plans against the male Mormons in the said Mormon Church."

Well that is quite an assumption. What you may not understand of federal laws are that they apply to interstate crimes. If any of these children were taken across state lines, even by their parents, and were abused, the feds are required to get involved. What country are you from anyway? You say you have muslim fundamentalist friends. All the muslims fundamentalists I know are restricted from forming friendships with anyone non-Muslim. So maybe your seemingly lack of revulsion of the reports coming out of Texas makes sense now.

Raul wrote: "Apparently, the leaders of the Church did not acted fast to confront the search warrant on the federal level, and now they do have more problems - from the Federal Government and the State of Texas government."

'Confront the search warrant'? What are you talking about? Do you mean by force? I'm not sure where you think this is going but it seems clear to me you are not used to the laws of America. If federal laws were broken, as Texas must have determined, the FBI gets the call. If they are now involved, not only were crimes found to have been committed, but also federal crimes.

Raul wrote: "We'll see how that's going to evolve. There is plenty of actions could be done on the federal level by the Church, but I don't see any actions for now."

What actions at the federal level?

I had a few thoughts I wanted to share after reading your article.

1. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints LEFT the Church of Jesus Christ when they felt they had more authority to run the church then the Prophet of God. (Think of people telling Moses how to run the church. Not good! So they left the church…)
2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints firmly believe in agency. Though there are commandments that are asked to be lived by… like don’t kill, be honest in your dealings with your fellow man… no one is ever TOLD what to do. It is believed that men are free to choose what would be best for them… especially when it comes to who you want to marry! (Even to choose to get divorced if you were really unhappy. I know of 2 polygamist women in the 1800’s who decided they weren’t happy, got divorced, remarried outside of a polygamist situation, and were still in good standing in the church… there was a choice there!)
3. I believe most people have some Polygamist background. Christian, Jew and others… Think of Abraham, the covenant one with God. Jacob and the 12 tribes of Israel. Which wife did the Jew’s come from????
4. When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints introduced polygamy in the 1840’s, there were a greater abundance of women then men, and many men left on missions for their church for several years… they were hardly there to even be with their ‘wives” – thank heavens they had each other… only 10% of the members were invited to live this. Which means 90% of the members of the church lived monogamous marriages. Really, there is salvation in this church if there is only one wife in the marriage.
5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints also “believes in beings subject to Kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law."

As a former Mormon who was once sealed "for time and all eternity" in the Mormon temple, I like many others were taught that the Mormon Church suspended the practice of polygamy in 1890 "in mortality", to comply with the modern society practice and laws.

In Mormon Theology "plural marriage" (polygamy) is still held as a sacred eternal Mormon principal (law) and in fact, will be practiced by many who attain the "Celestial Kingdom", or the highest degree in heaven, according to Mormon Theology.

In fact, men, whose wives have passed on, may be sealed to a 2nd wife in an LDS Temple (or even a third, should the 2nd wife pass on, too.). Any temple ceremony is considered to have eternal implications, especially when the words "for time and all eternity" are uttered as part of the ceremony.

Temple-going LDS are taught that if they remain faithful and true to the covenants and promises made in the Mormon Temple; "the day will come when you will be chosen, called up, and anointed Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses...the realization of these blessings depends upon your faithfulness."

Mormons are regularly taught that Elohim (God, the Father) has many wives (essentially Heavenly Mothers) and that plural marriage is revered as a "higher principal."

So, essentially both LDS and FLDS believe similar doctrine; that as faithful members; one day, after they pass beyond the veil of death, they may be privileged to able to live the same life that God is living, meaning a polygamous lifestyle.

The difference is that for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the polygamous lifestyle is prohibited until after death. But, for the FLDS, the polygamous lifestyle may be lived today, but only with the blessing and approval of the FLDS prophet.

Well, by golly, we certainly have nailed those goofy cats in Texas.

Now all we have to do is get those goofy cats in the Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Jewish, Islamic, UCC, Presbyterian, and Unitarian churches.

And then, there's the belief sets of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Lots of work to do.

I find it ironic that certain Mormons take offense that others describe themselves as Mormons, yet these same Mormons cannot understand why certain Christians take offense when Mormons describe themselves as Christian. Mormons cannot have it both ways.

The scriptures relevant to polygamy are still in the Mormon canon and polygamy remains a fundamental doctrine of the COJCLDS, even if it is not practiced as it earlier was. The practice was so important to the church that its founder, Joseph Smith, died defending polygamy. He and the inner circle who secretly practiced it but publicly disavowed it, destroyed the printing press of an anti-polygamous member who was exposing the practice. It was for this act Smith was sent to jail where he was killed by a mob of angry citizens.

(I am a descendent of Nauvoo era polygamous Mormons.)

I hate the way the sourcing and attribution rules of major media outlets don't even allow the normal copyediting for capitalization, punctuation, and the like. This is disrespectful of the people you quote. Someone who sent you an informal IM did not want it to be rolled right through to a quote in the Washington Post as is. When you as writers screw up in your manuscripts, don't you expect your copy desk to catch it. Of course a source's meaning and intent should not be changed, but common sense can judge when a copyedit will affect meaning and when it won't.

What is it that causes a group of people to separate themselves off in an enclosed compound anyway? No doubt, this can easily lead to the development of increasing paranoia and delusional thinking of those in the compound. Furthermore, girls were essentially being raped in this compound. How can this be justified? At any rate, I am not Mormon, but do know Mormons, and I don't believe their church sanctions this type of behavior at all. We've also seen other wackos, like David Koresh who had nothing to do with anything Mormon. Furthermore, if you look at the books of the non-Mormon Bible, you can find lots of quotes to justify just about any behavior. It's how it is interpreted in the light of modern times.

bastanow:

Abraham, Issac and Jacob in the Bible all practiced polygamy. Does that mean they were Mormons also?

Abe, Ike and Jacob were probably swinging cats. Unlike the freaky children of the corn rapers in Texas.

Garrett:

"It's not bigotry to point out intolerance in a sect's past. "

That is true, unless you choose to color facts with omissions, misrepresentations, lack of historical context, or with willful ignorance of exculpatory evidence.

Bastanow: I thought Isaac had only one wife, Rebecca. Rather a lovely story, actually.

It's not bigotry to point out intolerance in a sect's past. The policies were made by men and later renounced by men. That is honorable but when both of these divinely inspired doctrines are allegedly coming from the same Alpha and Omega creator, it shows weakness in the supposed authority of the chuch.

It is NOT bigotry to point this out. (Or to point out any of the abuses of the Catholic faith).

Abraham, Issac and Jacob in the Bible all practiced polygamy. Does that mean they were Mormons also?

Recently the Federal Government entered into the theater - the FBI got warrant from the Federal District court via the US Attorney on search of the property of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This action effectively paralyzed activities in the local Texas' district court. As I said before, feds will entered into the game, because the do have their own plans against the male Mormons in the said Mormon Church. Apparently, the leaders of the Church did not acted fast to confront the search warrant on the federal level, and now they do have more problems - from the Federal Government and the State of Texas government.

We'll see how that's going to evolve.

There is plenty of actions could be done on the federal level by the Church, but I don't see any actions for now.

Bigots who post about the now abandoned history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may later want to rant about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Bigotry has no bounds. Here are some point for the bigots who post:

1205: Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free..." i.e. they would be slaves of Christians.
1227: The Synod of Narbonne required Jews to wear an oval badge -- reminiscent of the Star of David that the Nazis required Jews to wear.
1478: The Spanish Inquisition was organized by the Church in order to detect insincere conversions of Jews to Christianity.
1516: Venice forced Jews to live only in one parish, called the "Ghetto Novo."
1555: A Roman Catholic Papal bull, "Cum nimis absurdum," required Jews in Vatican controlled lands to wear badges, and be confined to ghettos. Over 3,000 people were crammed into about 8 acres of land. The public health problems were horrendous.
1648-9: Massacres of Jews occurred in Nemirov, Polonnoye, Tulchin, Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, and other cities in Ukraine. About 100,000 Jews were murdered and 300 communities destroyed.

During these centuries, there were a few attempts by various popes to reduce the impact of the church's policies against the Jews. They were largely ignored. None had any lasting impact.

During 19th and first half of the 20th century CE:
In earlier centuries, persecution by church and state was directed at followers of Judaism. The Church believed that some Jews must be allowed to live, because the biblical book of Revelation indicated that they had a role to play in the "end times." However, since the Church at the time believed that all Jews were responsible for Jesus' death -- past, present and future -- then it was acceptable to make Jews' lives quite miserable. Jews could escape oppression by giving up their religion, converting to Christianity, and being baptized.

Subsequent attacks against Jews were mostly racially motivated, and perpetrated by Christian, governmental and secular groups and individuals. The Jewish people were viewed as a separate race more than as followers of a different religion.

1806: A French Jesuit Priest, Abbe Barruel, had written a treatise blaming the Masonic Order for the French Revolution. He later issued a letter alleging that Jews, not the Masons were the guilty party. Beliefs in an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world came from this source; they continue today.
1846 - 1878: Pope Pius IX restored all of the previous restrictions against the Jews within the Vatican state. All Jews under Papal control were confined to Rome's ghetto - the last one in Europe until the Nazis recreated ghettos in the 1930s. Pius IX was beatified in the year 2000 -- the last step before sainthood.
1881: The assassination of Alexander II of Russia was incorrectly blamed on Jews. About 200 individual pogroms against the Jews followed. ("Pogrom" is a Russian word meaning "devastation" or "riot.")
1894: French Captain Alfred Dreyfus was framed by antisemitic officers, found guilty and was given a life sentence. The church, government and army united to suppress the truth. Ten years later, he was declared totally innocent. The Dreyfus Affair became world-wide news for years.
1903+: Anti-Jewish pogroms continued in Russia, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths during the first two decades of the 20th century.
1905: The Russian secret police wrote a piece of fiction, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." A Russian Orthodox priest, Sergius Nilus, published them publicly in 1905. It was promoted as the record of "secret rabbinical conferences whose aim was to subjugate and exterminate the Christians." The forgeries are still being circulated. They appear from time to time in Muslim media. Wal-Mart stocked them in their online bookstore until 2004-SEP.
1930s: Some American clergy used their their radio programs to attack Jews. Father Charles E Coughlin was one of the best known. "In the 1930's, radio audiences heard him rail against the threat of Jews to America's economy and defend Hitler's treatment of Jews as justified in the fight against communism." 3
1933: Hitler becomes the chancellor of Germany.
1936: The Nazi government passed the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws, which paralleled earlier Church laws against Jews.
1936: Cardinal Hloud of Poland urged Catholics to boycott Jewish businesses.
1938: Hitler brought back various century-old church regulations, ordering all Jews to wear a yellow Star of David as identification.
1940: The Nazis confined Jews to inner-city ghettos, another technique of the church.
1941 to 1945: The Nazi Holocaust resulted in the execution of over 6 million Jews, a similar number of non-Jews -- such as Soviet prisoners of war, Polish intellectuals -- about a half million Roma (Gypsies). Also killed were a few thousand Jehovah's Witnesses and an unknown number of homosexuals. Of these victims, only the Jews and Roma were marked for total annihilation. 4

The Roman Catholic Church reversed its theology later in the 20th century and is now a strong supporter of religious tolerance towards Jews.

Oh, and I think we're leaving the RLDS out of this because the RLDS are a group that splintered when the LDS church started practicing polygamy, not when they stopped. So far as I know, they don't commit or endorse any egregious and disgusting crimes as a church, so identifying them as Mormon is less likely to result in prejudice towards the mainstream LDS church from the casual reader.