LDS Church Misrepresents the Truth in FLDS Response

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This, for me, takes the cake. In an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, today (LDS Church: Monitoring FLDS Prayer Sessions Would Be Inappropriate), LDS spokesman Scott Trotter said it would be "erroneous to base any request for assistance from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the basis that our beliefs and practices are close to those of this polygamous group because they are not." .

How can he say this when the LDS Church's own official and written policies in the CHI still allow for a form of polygamy among today's members: a living man (already sealed to a 1st wife) can be sealed to a 2nd wife, but a living woman (already sealed to a 1st husband) cannot be sealed to a 2nd husband!

EDITED TO ADD: Moreover, one-quarter of the Quorum of the Twelve (Perry, Nelson and Oakes) are currently this type of polygamist!

[_the road to hana]

This was the actual relevant information:

Scott Trotter, spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said that the church has heard about the judge's request only through news reports and therefore has "no clear understanding of what, if anything, we are being invited to do."
In an e-mail statement, Trotter said it would be "erroneous to base any request for assistance from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the basis that our beliefs and practices are close to those of this polygamous group because they are not."
He also acknowledged that such a request would not be fair, either to the polygamous FLDS, which "long ago chose a different path from ours. In fact, many in these isolated communities view us with some hostility as part of the outside world they have rejected."

What's wrong with this picture?

Putting the entire statement up only points out more erroneous statements on the part of the church's spokesperson.

Take the last statement above, for example. The FLDS are characterized as having "long ago chose a different path from ours. In fact many in these isolated communities view us with some hostility as part of the outside world which they have rejected."

Huh? They chose a different path? No, they stayed on the same path. They did not electively choose to leave the LDS Church or choose a different path. That's a false statement. The LDS Church, even after the issuance of not just the First, but the Second Manifesto, continued to turn a blind eye to the practice of polygamy within the church, and even encouraged and promoted it. Then suddenly, one day, they excommunicated all those people.

Do you think if suddenly the LDS Church changed its tune about blacks holding the priesthood, and said that blacks could not hold the priesthood, and then started excommunicating everyone who either was black with the priesthood or promoted it, those people who fervently believed the LDS Church was true but were suddenly excommunicated wouldn't form their own community? The thought is preposterous.

Take the rest of that statement. ". . .the outside world they have rejected?" Again, it was the outside world, or the LDS Church specifically, which rejected them, and cast them out. End of story. The LDS Church is good at spin, and in this case, it's engaging in making false and misleading statements.

How about that first statement. "No clear understanding of what, if anything, we are being invited to do?"

Please. The judge called on the local congregation of the LDS Church and made a specific request. She did not contact the LDS Church headquarters and make a request. And the request was very specific.

Adding the extra comments to put it in context only adds to the level of misrepresentation of the truth.

If this were a non-LDS community of any other stripe that had been impacted by a flood or hurricane or other misfortune, the LDS Church would be trumpeting its charitable response.

[_asbestosman]

The very fact that LDS and FLDS use the same unique scriptures, different from the rest of the world makes the religions kissin' cousins. :-)

Who else knows the history of the FLDS church going back to the days of their founder Joseph Smith?

The RLDS / CoC?

Who else knows the hymns?

RLDS
Other protestants (who we borrowed many hymns from).

Who else wears underwear with various symbols in specific places?

Maybe not the underwear, but what about masons?

Who else gets the idea of obedience to a living prophet who is the spokesperson for God?

The New Apostolic Church?
The Moonies?
Jimmy Jones's club?
David Koresh's gang?

Who else gets the temple ceremonies?

To some extent, the Masons?

Who else even remotely gets the sealing idea?

Asians who strongly revere their ancestors and thus preserve those relationships even while the others have passed away?

Who else has a history of modern day polygamy in their family ancestry?

Muslims.

Who else believes God is having sex with multiple women in heaven?

Various pagans? Didn't the Greeks and Romans used to believe this? Even in the Bible, we read of angels having sex with many women (in some interpretations about the giants before the deluge).

What other Western religion believes in polygamy (even if they claim they do not currently engage in the practice)?

Does Wicca count?

LDS folks are most clearly the ones who could best relate to this group...

Yep, and the church didn't deny that. They denied that we are close. I maintain that it depends on your point of view. It would have been least confusing to everyone if the church explained why they feel we are or are not close.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Abman...

:-)

A group or two may be similar in some respects but a Mormon church is FAR AND AWAY the closest thing to the FLDS we will find on this planet.

As far as I know, only Mormon religions embrace the D&C, believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, know the Book of Mormon to be true, believe in polygamy, believe they are the one and only true church, sing LDS hymns, obey the WoW, wear garments, believe in being sealed in the temple, think they have the Priesthood, share a common religious history for over a hundred years, believe their prophet is receiving revelation from Jesus Christ and believe they are the true followers of Joseph Smith.

If you can show me other non-Mormon groups who believe as such, then by all means let them help out. ;-)

The truth of the matter is, there is no group that is more similar to the FLDS than other "Mormon" churches. The SLC LDS church probably has more members in Texas than the others.

~dancer~

[_Sethbag]

Abman, you might have a point there if it weren't so plainly obvious that you are ignoring the whole point, which is that the FLDS have all of these beliefs in practices through Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Lorenzo Snow as "their" first four prophets. And everyone knows this, so what's the point in trying to obfuscate all of this, as if it's possible the FLDS got some idea or other from the Muslims, or the Moonies, or the Buddhists? They got them from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

[_asbestosman]

Hmm, let's see if I got the point. If I may be so bold as to quote myself.

Yep, and the church didn't deny that. They denied that we are close. I maintain that it depends on your point of view. It would have been least confusing to everyone if the church explained why they feel we are or are not close.

Yes, not doubt we are the closest religion to the FLDS. No doubt that German is quite similar to Dutch and Dutch is quite similar to English. Yes, the FLDS are closer to the LDS than Dutch is to English or Dutch is to German, but the point is that this "closeness" is a subjective determination. Catholics are close to protestants. Catholics are also close to Eastern Orthodox Christians. FLDS are closer to LDS than any of those examples, but there are still significant differences.

Well, maybe they aren't significant. You see, the problem is that what I think is significant is something that another person will think is not very significant. Some may think that Calvinists are significantly different from Lutherans. Others prefer to lump them close together under the name of Protestants. Again, I think FLDS and LDS are closer than Lutherans and Calvinists, but I maintain that there are some very significant differences and that this significance justifies maintaing that we are not close.

Perhaps we're close the way Suni Muslims are close to Shiite Muslims? I'm not so sure how close those two really are. I mean, last I heard they're ready to kill the others as apostate infidels. I don't think FLDS and LDS are quite like that, but I think the Muslims would justly maintain that they have very significant differences are don't really feel close to each other.

Would you have Shiites help out Sunis in the name of closeness when you know they each have hard feelings of distrust towards the other?

[_truth dancer]

Would you have Shiites help out Sunis when you know they each have hard feelings towards the other?

No I would never ask one group to help a group they hated.

Obviously a group that hated another is not going to be very helpful. :-(

The issue here though, in my opinion, is not really about who is helpful but about the honesty of the statement by an LDS man suggesting the LDS and FLDS churches are not similar.


~dancer~

[_the road to hana]

Hmm, let's see if I got the point. If I may be so bold as to quote myself.

Yep, and the church didn't deny that. They denied that we are close. I maintain that it depends on your point of view. It would have been least confusing to everyone if the church explained why they feel we are or are not close.

Yes, not doubt we are the closest religion to the FLDS. No doubt that German is quite similar to Dutch and Dutch is quite similar to English. Yes, the FLDS are closer to the LDS than Dutch is to English or Dutch is to German, but the point is that this "closeness" is a subjective determination. Catholics are close to protestants. Catholics are also close to Eastern Orthodox Christians. FLDS are closer to LDS than any of those examples, but there are still significant differences.

Well, maybe they aren't significant. You see, the problem is that what I think is significant is something that another person will think is not very significant. Some may think that Calvinists are significantly different from Lutherans. Others prefer to lump them close together under the name of Protestants. Again, I think FLDS and LDS are closer than Lutherans and Calvinists, but I maintain that there are some very significant differences and that this significance justifies maintaing that we are not close.

Perhaps we're close the way Suni Muslims are close to Shiite Muslims? I'm not so sure how close those two really are. I mean, last I heard they're ready to kill the others as apostate infidels. I don't think FLDS and LDS are quite like that, but I think the Muslims would justly maintain that they have very significant differences are don't really feel close to each other.

Would you have Shiites help out Sunis in the name of closeness when you know they each have hard feelings of distrust towards the other?

I guess I see it a little differently, because in all of the instances you cited above, one group left another one, rather than being cast out of another one and wanting to continue practicing exactly the same way.

To me, it's more like trying to find a suitable kidney donor for an estranged brother.

And I think we need to refocus on what the judge in this case asked. She just wanted a "buffer" (her words), not spies. Over on MADB they're all abuzz with knickers twisted about being asked to "spy." Nothing remotely like that was ever suggested. I think the FLDS women were uncomfortable having representatives of the state with them when they prayed.

I think the LDS Church is really making a major misstep on this one. If the Community of Christ needed help, they'd be there. It's a relationship issue, it's wanting to distance from polygamy and not have current members, particularly converts, realize how closely aligned they are.

I think the FLDS should file a suit against the LDS Church for damages for having created the circumstances they're in in the first place (of course, I'm at least half kidding).

[_asbestosman]

The issue here though, in my opinion, is not really about who is helpful but about the honesty of the statement by an LDS man suggesting the LDS and FLDS churches are not similar.

I maintain that it's an honest statement. I would think that Sunis would reply similarly when asked about the closeness of Shiites. They would each likely say that the other is not close and would cite what they feel are significant differences.

Of course, I can't think of anyone closer to Shiites than Sunis or anyone closer to Sunis than Shiites. Still, I think they can honestly say that the other group is not close.

[_Sethbag]

This whole situation is a PR nightmare for the church (by which I mean the entire thing, the FLDS church existing at all, mention of Brigham Young, the Book of Mormon, the very word Mormon, etc., this Texas thing, etc.), and the church is smart not to want to touch it with a 10-foot pole. Absolutely nothing good could possibly come from the LDS church having a bishop, or some other trusted individual, sit in on FLDS prayers on behalf of the state. The LDS church's name would then be even more intimately connected with this FLDS thing than it already is, and the LDS church doesn't want that.

I do think the church understates the similarities, and common origin, of the two churches, however I can't blame them for trying hard not to get involved directly with this Texas ranch thing.