Washington Post: Five myths about Mormonsim

[UtahDan]

I found out earlier this week that a friend of mine is an polygamist in the sense that he is sealed to two living women. Divorced the first but could not get clearance for a cancellation or for a new sealing. He got married civilly and eventually got clearance to be sealed to his current wife, but he remains sealed to the old one because the cancellation could not get approval. Apparently this will always be so unless she decided she wants to remarry. That polygamy is an eternal principle is undeniable as long as Section 132 is on the books.

I don't think most Mormons really believe that it is an eternal principle anymore, however. I think there is just open rebellion on this. The FLDS do the church no favors on this either.

[SteelBlue]

That was the most honest response I've read.

[UtahDan]

Joanna is on her way to be a powerful voice on the national stage. I think she does a superb job for the most part of defending the faith and articulating a very progressive vision of it and for it. It will be interesting as time goes on to see whether people and leaders view her as an ally they want.

From the same article:

It is true that mainstream Mormonism does not accord women equal status with men. The worldwide LDS Church chain of command — including all positions of clerical, institutional and fiscal authority — is entirely male. Women cannot hold the lay priesthood shared in by men age 12 and older. The church’s Proclamation on the Family declares that men “preside” over the household. Unequal gender language is also a part of Mormon temple worship and marriage ceremonies.

But Mormonism also has more progressive elements. Our concept of God is not exclusively male: We believe in a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. Our theology teaches that all individuals can receive inspiration directly from God. Our history gives us many examples of strong, independent-minded women, such as 19th-century suffragist Emmeline Wells and writer Eliza R. Snow. And thousands of progressive LDS women and men today call ourselves “Mormon feminists” — rejecting parts of Mormonism that promote inequality while holding to affirming elements of our tradition.

Does even a particle of that make it through correlation?

[Donuthole]

It is true that mainstream Mormonism does not accord women equal status with men. The worldwide LDS Church chain of command — including all positions of clerical, institutional and fiscal authority — is entirely male. Women cannot hold the lay priesthood shared in by men age 12 and older. The church’s Proclamation on the Family declares that men “preside” over the household. Unequal gender language is also a part of Mormon temple worship and marriage ceremonies.

But Mormonism also has more progressive elements. Our concept of God is not exclusively male: We believe in a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. Our theology teaches that all individuals can receive inspiration directly from God. Our history gives us many examples of strong, independent-minded women, such as 19th-century suffragist Emmeline Wells and writer Eliza R. Snow. And thousands of progressive LDS women and men today call ourselves “Mormon feminists” — rejecting parts of Mormonism that promote inequality while holding to affirming elements of our tradition.

Does even a particle of that make it through correlation?

I bolded some particles that would definitely make it through correlation. There are probably some other parts that would arguably make it through.

[Eddie]

Joanna is on her way to be a powerful voice on the national stage. I think she does a superb job for the most part of defending the faith and articulating a very progressive vision of it and for it. It will be interesting as time goes on to see whether people and leaders view her as an ally they want.

From the same article:



Does even a particle of that make it through correlation?

As I read through that, the only thought that readily occurred to me was that I'm not sure how big a deal this is (while acknowledging my bias as one of the presiding class).

It seems to me that guys who are dominating in their relationships are going to be dominating regardless of what religion they are or what their religious leaders tell them. And guys who share decision making and leadership will do that regardless as well. I understand that in some ways this is evidence of the evolution of society. But I'm just not sure that there is a huge deal of difference between how an LDS household is run versus how most are run.

I suppose the big issue is leadership in the church. Personally, I would prefer to be a woman and never have to worry about a Bishopric calling. But that aside - I don't think I'd want to be the RS president either. Yikes.

[Moliere]

Joanna is on her way to be a powerful voice on the national stage. I think she does a superb job for the most part of defending the faith and articulating a very progressive vision of it and for it. It will be interesting as time goes on to see whether people and leaders view her as an ally they want.

I love Joanna and I'm not even a flaming liberal. I don't like her political views, but I like to read her political views. I agree with her maybe 50% of the time but I'll read her 100% of the time.

I think Joanna will be a big player in coming years. She's a Mormon feminist progressive in a time when the church is likely afraid to excommunicate someone for simply being a feminist progressive.

[scottie]

The comments are about what you'd expect, and 616 of them so far. Mormons are/aren’t Christians is one that a lot are going after.

[jay santos]

The comments are about what you'd expect, and 616 of them so far. Mormons are/aren’t Christians is one that a lot are going after.

She had a good answer for Mormons aren't Christians.

There are two definitions of "Christian".

1. A believer in the general teachings of the New Testament. Jesus is God incarnate, born through some sort of miracle, taught his gospel on Earth, performed miracles, gave his life to atone for mankind, was resurrected, and by following him we can live in Heaven.

2. A believer in the Baptist church founded in the US and fully accepting of a narrow and specific set of beliefs about the Bible, God, and Jesus Christ. Or very, very close to it. How close? It depends on how much the Baptists like you.

It's lame what Evangelicals are doing here, and it's good for Mormons to bring this to light.

The author does this by saying some Christians don't like to call us Mormons, but my husband's a Jew and according to him, everything I believe and do seems like a Christian.

[Sleeping in EQ]

This is an entirely curious question: What do you think the church should say or do about that particular issue?

There's no great mystery here, just as there's no great mystery with what to do about singles in the Church.

In the short term, having Institute classes that are actually relevant would be helpful. How about an Institute class that reads RSR and an instructor who is up to teaching it? Even better, how about having some of such classes meet online?

Church members have had enough with conversation ending pronouncements, insincere, dismissive rhetorical questions, and simpleton answers during their meetings. They have not had enough facts, especially on a topic like polygamy that is deeply and consistently relevant to Mormonism's relationship to the larger American culture. The Church has not equipped Church members to substantively and accurately answer questions about the Church that are being asked by their neighbors and coworkers, on news programs, on blogs, and in newspapers all over the country right this second.

Church members' lack of knowledge about polygamy lends to their feeling "uncomfortable" when someone like Joanna Brooks goes public with facts in an accurate, non-sensational manner. It has them wondering if what she has written is "proper." It's a vicious cycle, it's pathetic, and the correlated programs, manuals, and attitudes that have contributed to this sorry state bear some responsibility for it. They also bear responsibility for the tensions in the Church between those in the know who discuss these things with impunity in the media sphere, and those who are trying to make Mormonism comfortable and proper.

[UtahDan]

I suppose the big issue is leadership in the church. Personally, I would prefer to be a woman and never have to worry about a Bishopric calling. But that aside - I don't think I'd want to be the RS president either. Yikes.

I don't think too many people view inequity in the home as being the issue. I never really observed it much. We have talked about it before, but there is a study out there that says that something like 50% of men want women to have the priesthood whereas only about 10% of women want it for themselves.

[jay santos]

I don't think too many people view inequity in the home as being the issue. I never really observed it much. We have talked about it before, but there is a study out there that says that something like 50% of men want women to have the priesthood whereas only about 10% of women want it for themselves.

I'd like to see that study. That seems counter intuitive.

[pellegrino]

There's no great mystery here, just as there's no great mystery with what to do about singles in the Church.

In the short term, having Institute classes that are actually relevant would be helpful. How about an Institute class that reads RSR and an instructor who is up to teaching it? Even better, how about having some of such classes meet online?

Church members have had enough with conversation ending pronouncements, insincere, dismissive rhetorical questions, and simpleton answers during their meetings. They have not had enough facts, especially on a topic like polygamy that is deeply and consistently relevant to Mormonism's relationship to the larger American culture. The Church has not equipped Church members to substantively and accurately answer questions about the Church that are being asked by their neighbors and coworkers, on news programs, on blogs, and in newspapers all over the country right this second.

Church members' lack of knowledge about polygamy lends to their feeling "uncomfortable" when someone like Joanna Brooks goes public with facts in an accurate, non-sensational manner. It has them wondering if what she has written is "proper." It's a vicious cycle, it's pathetic, and the correlated programs, manuals, and attitudes that have contributed to this sorry state bear some responsibility for it. They also bear responsibility for the tensions in the Church between those in the know who discuss these things with impunity in the media sphere, and those who are trying to make Mormonism comfortable and proper.

Amen, Bro. SIEQ! Amen! In my discussions with family members and other, more traditional believing Mormons, the most difficult aspect is trying to communicate that advocating for change or disagreeing with the way things are done does not mean heresy and apostasy. In my experience many Mormons feel that because certain policies have their origin in the CHOI and therefore the Q12 and FP, they are something more than policies. They are "revealed" policies, which give them some sort of quasi-doctrinal status. If you disagree with this order of operations you are at odds with the Bretheren. If you are at odds with the Bretheren then you are at odds with God and His church. I can't tell you how many times I've told my brothers that just because a church leader came up with the policy doesn't mean that's the only/best/right way to do it. IMO this leads to a big disconnect in the church where the faithful feel that in order to be faithful they have to do as they're told and the leaders feel that because of their position and right to inspiration every good idea is the will of God.

Now, I realize that not every Mormon feels this way, but I'd venture to say that if you put forth a series of statements like "Disagreeing with [insert priesthood leader here] is: acceptable, unacceptable, occasionally acceptable" then I'll bet that the overwhelming majority of the time (depending on who the leader is) the response would come back as unacceptable. Ours is a culture of obedience, deference, and submission. It does not come natural to any Mormon to question a priesthood leader.

I realize I've strayed somewhat from the topic, but the point is that just because the Church has taken a particular stance or attitude towards an issue, doesn't mean that it is the only way to approach that issue, much less the right one. As in all things, there are many ways to skin a cat.

[UtahDan]

I'd like to see that study. That seems counter intuitive.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2010/12/why-do-mormon-men-want-women-to-have-the-priesthood-more-than-women-want-it-for-themselves.html

It is actually in a book called American Grace by Robert Putnam and David Campbell. I heard one of them interviewed and he was quick to say "in a sample size of 3000 or so there are not a huge number of Mormons, so don't make to much of the exact numbers other than to note that a lot more men want it than women."

He said they were working on a study of just LDS people that would flesh some of their interesting findings about LDS out.

[Moliere]

Joanna Brooks >>>>>> MDL

1. Mormons practice polygamy.

Mainstream Mormons do not practice polygamy today, but it remains part of our history and theology. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion, married at least 33 women (often without the consent of his first wife, Emma) and preached that polygamy was divinely sanctioned. In 1890, more than four decades after Smith’s death, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the mainstream Mormon Church — yielded to political pressure and phased out the practice. Today, members who marry more than one spouse are excommunicated, but ultra-orthodox splinter groups continue the practice.

Polygamy remains a source of tension for mainstream Mormons. Mormon public figures routinely play down our polygamous history, saying that only a tiny percentage of 19th-century Mormon families were polygamous. (Historians say it was 20 to 30 percent.) But the LDS Church, which teaches that marriages — or “sealings” — performed in its temples are eternal, has never disavowed elements of Mormon theology suggesting that polygamy will be practiced in heaven. Church policy permits widowed and some divorced men to be sealed for all eternity to more than one wife, while Mormon women may not be sealed to more than one husband. Consequently, some mainstream LDS Church members anticipate polygamy as part of eternity, while others reject it.

Q. Do members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practice polygamy?

A. No. Members of the LDS Church are immediately excommunicated if they marry more than one person at the same time.

Q. But isn’t there some faction within the Mormon Church that practices polygamy?

A. No. If by “Mormon” you are referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there is no member who engages in polygamy with the knowledge of Church leaders.

Q. So who are all those people in Utah, Arizona, and Texas who practice polygamy?

A. There are some other religious sects, not affiliated with what people commonly call the “Mormon Church,” such as the Apostolic United Brethren (including the cast of the reality TV show “Sister Wives”), the Fundamentalist LDS Church or FLDS (the Colorado City, Arizona-based sect associated with Warren Jeffs), the “First Warders”, the “Work of Jesus Christ, also known as the Centennial Park group or “Second Ward,” the Davis County Cooperative Society, otherwise known as The Kingstons, and the True and Living Church (TLC), that practice polygamy in the western United States. These are mostly groups started by people who were excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the early 20th centuries. Most current members of these churches are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these original members.

Think Lutherans and Catholics. No one would accuse them of being the same church, even though the Lutherans broke off from the Catholics. In the case of these polygamous groups, their great-grandparents were excommunicated from the LDS Church, in much the same way as Martin Luther and his followers (the Lutherans) were excommunicated from the Catholic church.

Q. But aren’t they still “Mormons” because they believe in the Book of Mormon?

A. No, they aren’t. You certainly wouldn’t ask if Lutherans are still Catholic because they believe in the Bible. It is most appropriate to call them by the name of their church. The term “Mormon” is used for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So it is inappropriate to use that term with other groups, unless it is modified. Some modify the term ‘Mormon” with “Fundamentalist”, however, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints objects to that usage as that usage leads to confusion between the groups and isn’t very accurate.

Q. But didn’t the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practice polygamy at one time?

A. Yes. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a percentage of people practicing polygamy in the 1800s. From 1835 to 1852 this was done privately, then from 1852 to 1890 it was practiced publicly. In 1890 the practice of “plural marriage” was ordered to be stopped by LDS Church President Wilford Woodruff. There were some within the Church who defied this order and continued plural marriages in secret until 1904. The Church then came out with a stronger statement on the issue and started excommunicating anyone who did it. It is estimated there were 300 plural marriages between 1890 and 1904.

Q. So, aren’t they just living the way Mormons used to live? Aren’t they like “old style” Mormons?

A. No. These modern non-LDS groups do things very differently than the way they were historically done by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For instance, when polygamy was practiced in early Utah, women had complete choice in the situation and the right to no-fault divorce. Church President Brigham Young knew that living in these arrangements could be difficult, so women could leave the relationships for any reason. As no-fault divorce was not generally available in the rest of the United States, this led to “divorce tourism” in Utah, with people coming from all over the country, including from Washington DC, to obtain easy divorces.

There are other differences as well. In some of these modern non-LDS groups, a conflict with church leadership can lead to wives, children, and property being “transferred” to other men, which was never practiced in early Mormon polygamy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a strong belief in agency, or freedom of choice. Also, in early Mormonism there were no boys thrown out of the church (called “lost boys” today) merely for the sake of creating a male-female imbalance, as there is in some of these modern groups. In early Mormonism, the ultimate decisions were made by the individuals involved. To be fair, it should be noted there are some modern splinter groups that also object to the practices of transferring wives and families and forced marriages.

It must be remembered that in early Mormonism, the majority of members were monogamous. One study by scholar Kathryn Danes on one Southern Utah community found that the majority of polygamous wives came from widows, divorcees, and daughters raised in polygamous families.

Q. What percentage of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy?

A. There are a number of statistics on this. And as with all statistics, it depends on how you count members involved in polygamous relationships. Do you count the number of men? Do you count the number of men and women? Or do you count the number of men, women, and children? The statistics given tend to be unclear on who is being counted, so it is hard to nail down an accurate number. But modern estimates of LDS members practicing polygamy prior to 1904 range between 2% and 20%. Much of the Church leadership also practiced polygamy, although that wasn’t a universal rule.

http://mdl.org/103/polygamy

The biggest issue missing from the MDL is they don't tell the whole truth and everyone sees through it. I think an open, upfront, honest explanation will go light years farther than the petty, close-ended, spiteful writing of the MDL. Just my opinion.

[jay santos]

http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsa...hemselves.html

It is actually in a book called American Grace by Robert Putnam and David Campbell. I heard one of them interviewed and he was quick to say "in a sample size of 3000 or so there are not a huge number of Mormons, so don't make to much of the exact numbers other than to note that a lot more men want it than women."

He said they were working on a study of just LDS people that would flesh some of their interesting findings about LDS out.

Interesting. I can't explain it. It seems like it would be like any other number of women's rights issues, where women are mostly for it and only the liberal men are for it.