Mormon text leaves a maze of confusion

Posted by hthalljr (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

B. Kent Larson is only confused because he does not understand the basic doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Among them is that the heavens are open, that God's future word is not bound by any written text.

In the last century, God commanded us to live the law of polygamy, and he revealed that this principle endures in the heavens. Later, in his own wisdom, he commanded us no longer to practice this on earth. Why should that be so confusing?

The FLDS and other "fundamentalists" rejected the word of the living prophets. Like the Pharisees of old, they garnish the tombs of past prophets while rejecting living prophets.

However, Larson betrays his own intent to deceive when he conveniently omits the following verse from the chapter he cites in the Book of Mormon that "condemns" polygamy:

"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30)

That is exactly what the Lord did when he commanded my ancestors to practice polygamy. They recoiled at the thought, but they obeyed, and I owe my existence to their sacrifice. I am also thankful that when the Lord ended the practice, my ancestors obeyed, thereby giving their descendants a precious heritage of obedience and sacrifice.

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com

Posted by peajay (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry...was this a journalistic article? If so, it violates all tenets of objectivity and fairness and of basic research and verification of facts. If it's an opinion piece, it should be clearly labeled as such. And it smacks of hate speech. Where is the news value and what is the intent?

May I suggest a litmus test? Substitute "black" or "Jewish" or "woman" for the term "Mormon" and if it doesn't make your skin crawl from obvious bigotry, then maybe it is innocuous; otherwise you might want to seriously consider if it deserves a place on your pages.

Posted by JD (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't mean to offer any defense of polygamy, as I am a modern Mormon who believes it is contrary to God's will, but, technically, the Book of Mormon says polygamy is prohibited except when God explicitly commands it. Thus, the early Mormon practice of polygamy does not violate the Book of Mormon. From a modern Mormon perspective, though, modern practitioners of polygamy are violating God's will, as God no longer authorizes plural marriages.

You mention Mormon scriptures contained in the Doctrine and Covenants that seem to approve of polygamy. Just because polygamy is retained in Mormon scriptures does not mean it is a modern doctrine. Many scriptures are retained only because of their historical significance. Mormons also consider the Old Testament to be scripture, but that doesn't mean we consider the Law of Moses to be modern doctrine. For that matter, polygamy is also mentioned in the Old Testament. Does that mean that modern Christians and Jews are secret polygamists because they have not removed the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from their scriptural cannon? Of course not.

Might I suggest that you limit your reporting to the facts and refrain from commenting on Mormon doctrine, a topic about which you are obviously not well informed?

Posted by kidkolob (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will reveal unto you a new and an “everlasting covenant” and if ye abide not in that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

Did you catch it? Celestial Marriage is Plurality of Wives! The Mormon Church has never, ever stopped practicing their law that applies to polygamy or plurality of wives as that is what Celestial Marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant) is!

Did you notice that the marriage sealing ceremony not only continues the practice of polygamy, and, because of the covenant of the Law of Consecration, married you to the church and it's commandments by covenant, not each other?

Investigators BEWARE:
Demand full disclosure for informed consent. You won't get it from the Mormon Church, so do your own research.

As long as D&C 132 is doctrine, the Mormon church will never be able to claim they are removed from polygamy.

Posted by Rathje (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm a practicing believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and unlike some of my fellow LDS, I don't pop a vein the moment a journalist wants to talk about polygamy in connection with Mormons. I actually applaud Mr. Larson for bothering to actually research the relevant scripture. This is more than many people in the news do.

A lot of people who've researched D&C 132 agree that the "new and everlasting covenant" of marriage actually does refer to polygamous union. In modern days, this covenant has been extended to monogamous unions. Critics are also correct that the practice has not been entirely abandoned by the modern LDS Church. The easiest example is to point out that Mormons believe in eternal family relationships - including marriage. Yet an LDS man marries in the temple to a woman who later dies, then he remarries - again in the temple - the man is effectively "sealed" to two women in the eyes of heaven. Women are also sealed posthumously in the temple to more than one man - it does happen.

So effectively, polygamy is still in force in the LDS Church. At least in its view of heaven...

Where I disagree with our critics is that this is a bad thing. I don't really feel particularly apologetic about the LDS practice of polygamy. It's not something that bothers me.

Let me put it this way: I'll be perfectly happy to apologize for the Mormons' historic practice of polygamy as soon as the rest of y'all are willing to apologize for the historic practice of monogamy. There isn't a single crime or transgression in the history of Mormon polygamy that hasn't also been committed by god-fearing American monogamists - in spades.

I don't practice polygamy, and I don't want to. But I don't really see what the big screaming deal is about it either.

Posted by Alma (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to disagree with both Mr. Stewart and Rathje's claim above that the "new and everlasting covenant" mentioned in section 132 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants is either polygamy or monogamy. Most people who conclude that this it refers solely to polygamy haven't read verse 7--which explains that what is under consideration includes "all covenants" not just marriage.

Posted by Rathje (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting point Alma. You may be right.

Posted by bsl103158 (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Larsen is correct. His article is good.

Also, Tracy, it is right to recoil from someone who tells you to go commit fornication and adultery. Your ancestors were right to recoil- and Mr. Smith and Brigham Young were wrong. They were both disgraceful people and never knew the Lord. They both commanded people to not accept the Bible as complete revelation from God, which is clearly warned about in the Bible, and to accept their perversions and greed. They both met the criteria for false prophets according to the Bible, as did their successors many years ago, and it continues today, putting multitudes in danger. They hurt many people, incited people to break many laws, and brought much righteous indignation upon themselves, which some erroneously still call persecution.

Mormons are faced with much confusion all the time and the best thing they can do for themselves is leave that false belief system. Please see Life After Ministries on the web. You'll be glad you did.

Posted by Alma (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately, bsl103158, (telling handle) Mr. Larsen is an uninformed novice in this arena. His comments belie (as do yours) a black/white mentality that doesn't quite catch enough of the data to justify the sweeping statements that appear above.

By the way, neither Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young ever encouraged anyone to commit adultery or fornication. In the end, you'll find that your standard is flawed and they were prophets after all.

Posted by Rathje (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It always cracks me up when an Evangelical comes stomping onto the scene screeching about how Mormon prophets had all these flaws.

Ever check out your own precious Biblical prophets buddy?

Posted by salindbloom (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. I'm having trouble figuring out what these Mormons are so upset over. What has Mr. Larson said? 1) Many polygamous groups believe their practice of polygamy is in obedience to an alleged revelation by Joseph Smith; 2) When written, the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants was understood to command polygamy; 3) Polygamy was important to early Mormon leaders as evidenced by Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's many wives; 4) There have been conflicting messages regarding the practice of polygamy throughout the history of the Utah Mormon Church; 5) The Utah Mormon Church no longer practices polygamy, though the doctrine, applied now to polygamy in eternity, remains; 5) The conflicting messages and changing doctrinal practice is confusing to some, resulting in polygamous splinter groups who believe they are being obedient to God's command give through Joseph Smith.

Mr. Larson is accused here of many things, including being deceptive, lacking objectivity and fairness, and perpetrating "hate speech." Huh? It all seems pretty straightforward to me. Mr. Larson has given us a little history lesson (verifiably true) that helps us better understand the FLDS group and their motivation to live as polygamists. Why is this information so offensive to Mormons? How on earth can this be considered "hate speech"? Why is Mr. Larson mischaracterized as "screeching" about Mormon prophets? I appreciate the comments above that actually engage the ideas presented by Mr. Larson. They give me something to think about and perhaps research. But the name-calling and knee-jerk comments by some only serve to make me wonder why these Mormons seem entirely unwilling to think.

Posted by truthinlove (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As an evangelical Christian, I read the bible for all it is worth. The bible clearly portrays polygamy as a sin. Everyone in the bible that practiced it was eventually punished by God for their actions. The Book of Mormon clearly states the same abomination of polygamy. When one looks at the historical timeline of the 1890 manifesto, it was in direct response to Utah's statehood. It was "convienient revelation" that ended the practice "in this dispensation." If the LDS church is serious about its condemnation of polygamy, then the leaders of the church must repeal sect. 132. That said, polygamy is only the high profile difference between the LDS church and Chrisianity. There are many points of difference that should be addressed. Who is God? Who is Jesus? Is the Bible reliable? What does it take to live with God again? All are more important topics in the true scope of addressing the vast differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Mormonism is NOT Christian. You must be solid in your faith and have knowledge of Mormonisms peculiar teachings to fully recognize the need to reach out to this very good, clean, and upstanding, but lost group.