The most notorious clan would be the Kingstons, I believe. Although THAT family’s biggest problem is inbreeding.
Yeah, I never thought of them as Mormons proper, but as offshoots.
The most notorious clan would be the Kingstons, I believe. Although THAT family’s biggest problem is inbreeding.
Yeah, I never thought of them as Mormons proper, but as offshoots.
I don’t understand why this sort of bigotry against polygamy is so common and accepted. If the OP had cited an example of same sex rape, and implied that this was an inherent property of being homosexual, implied that more vigorous prosecution of homosexuality would help solve the problem, and advocated government confiscation of land and property from homosexuals, he’d immediately be taken to the Pit, if not banned. Why is this sort of prejudice accepted when it’s against polygamists?
What the fuck are you on about, The Ryan? You see folks bashing on polygamy per se in this thread? 'Cos I don’t.
Personally, I have nothing against polygamy, in theory. Provided all members are in a healthy and loving and supportive relationship of equals. I happen to know a family or two in an effective polygamy… they’re older folks, it was the 60s, and it grew out of a commune. Legally, they’re married normally, though.
However, more often, it’s a male-dominated twisted fantasy that makes the news. And I apologize for calling them fundamentalists, but as you noticed, I put it in quote, aware that wasn’t quite right. They certainly, however, seem to have the raving loony spirit of mainstream fundies.
If they call themselves “Mormon Fundamentalists”–and they most certainly do–then “Mormon Fundamamentalists” it is. Krakauer is quite careful about separating the LDS church and mainstream Mormons from the various branches pro-polygamy Mormon Fundamenalism.
The M.F.'s do share a lot of basic doctrine with the LDS church, most obviously their belief in the Book of Mormon and the old-school Doctrines & Covenants. It is not reasonable, in my estimation, to demand that the term “Mormon” never be applied to these people, so long as the distinction is made between the Mormom Fundamentalists and the official LDS church.
It is to the M.F.'s, unfortunately.
I don’t know what your reference is to J.S.'s preaching about the modern prophets, but you’re quite right that the M.F.'s have rejected the revelations of the modern LDS prophets. (Sorry if I’m goofing up my terminology there–not my field of expertise.) They’re quite explicit about it, condemning the post-statehood church as the work of Satan, etc. Again, this is unmistakably described in Krakauer’s book.
Again, Krakauer is completely unambiguous about this.
Quite so. I’ve argued in a past thread that the social forces inherent in the kind of polygamy practiced in those communities almost necessarily leads to the abuses described in Krakauer’s book, including child brides and domestic violence.
In which case, I would suggest that having a bunch of people read Krakauer’s book would be a wonderful way of dispelling any such misconceptions. Really, the guy is unmistakable on the differences between the mainstream church and the M.F.'s.
If he screwed up anything in particular, I’d be happy to see it corrrected. The use of “secondary sources” does not make the book inherently untrustworthy, unless those sources are themselves incorrect. I would also hope that you’re not suggesting that Krakauer should only rely on church-sanctioned sources, as there are many important disagreements between the church and historians on questions of Joseph Smith and Mormon history.
In which case, I would invite such persons to put their evidence on the table. Since the book’s only been out for 5 days and even I haven’t managed to finish it yet, I would be inclined to think that the persons you speak of are arguing from ignorance.
Wouldn’t dream of it. We have more than a few LDS posters on this Board who are pleasant and eloquent representatives of their faith. Nobody would mistake them for Dan and Ron Lafferty.
I sincerely doubt that the OP is trying to sell the product, or has any vested interest in its sale. Why can’t you fall for something like this hook line and sinker and go ranting about it like it’s proven fact? People do that all the time!
The OP is not the author, not the bookseller, and not the publisher. (Well, I suppose the OP could in fact be a bookseller. I doubt it, though.) This is a mainstream book, published by a mainstream publisher, by an author who has hit the best-seller list before and will again. The OP did not say buy the book, it said read. There are these things called libraries, and they will purchase many copies. I see no problem with recommending the book along with getting the word out about the topic of the book.
The OP said:
That’s very different from what the moderator said:
Further note to mod: it’s RECEIVING
Cicada telling people to read a certain book is promoting it. You don’t have to profit monetarily from something to promote it.
Right. And Joseph Smith explicitly said that it would always be best to follow the majority of the Apostles, and that God would not let the apostles and the prophets go astray this time. I’ll dig up a quote or two for you a bit later, if you like.
Thanks. I’m sure there’s some way they’ve weaseled around that provision, simply because that happens with pretty much every religion on the planet. But that does clarify your point.
Posted by E-Sabbath:
Yes . . . those were the days when every girl in Utah married Young!
Remember “Sweet Betsy from Pike”?
They stopped at Salt Lake to inquire the way,
Where Brigham declared that sweet Betsy should stay!
But Betsy got frightened, ran off like a deer,
While Brigham stood pawing the ground like a steer!
minty green: I wasn’t aware of any of the “splinter” groups actually calling themselves “Mormon Fundamentalists” other than that they say they’re holding true to the church’s founder’s preaching. Would you be so kind as to provide a cite from one of those groups using that term for itself?
Well, like I mused, Monty, they might be like the ultra-Traditionlist Catholics, the Sedevacantists. They adhere to the strict old old OLD Catholicism, but they’re still heretics.
Monty: It apears to be a blanket term, rather than one applied to the individual splinter groups. Nevertheless, the largest of these groups calls itself the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, headed by Rulon Jeffs in Colorado City.
At least some of the individual members of these groups describe themselves as Fundamentalists to differentiate their faith from the mainstream LDS church. See, for instance, this pro-polygamy site, which includes such articles as Interview with an Independent Fundamentalist. Of course, the LDS church is displeased with any description of such persons that includes the word “Mormon,” but I’m not inclined to indulge them in that preference so long as the speaker is clear that the polygamist sects are not affiliated with or approved by the mainstream LDS church. You can Google up any number of other references to M.F.'s describing themselves as such, or at least accepting the description. Not that most M.F.'s spend a lot of time creating web pages to promote their faith.
Incidentally, I also found a site called MormonFundamentalism.com, which looks like a LDS-run site addressing the claims of the M.F.'s and providing other relevant information from the LDS point of view.
I know that. That’s why I said they are offshoots of the mainstream church. They are not the mainstream LDS church. They are offshoots.
Thanks, minty green. So basically what it boils down to is other people call those folks “Mormon fundamentalists,” but those folks don’t call themselves that.
I guess I should also make clear that by “those folks,” I really meant their official outfits and not individual people.
Not so, Monty. I repeat: “[T]he largest of these groups calls itself the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” And if you had read much of anything on that mormons.org.uk web site that I linked–an “official outlet” if ever there was one–you would have seen such statements as these:
Now, are you seriously claiming that these nuts do not call themselves “Mormon Fundamentalists”? Mere minutes with Google would dissuade you of that notion, I assure you.
Frankly, I do think that older men should not be taking child brides. The problem is that these children are unable to give “informed consent” as they have been brainwashed into believing that they are doing the “right” thing. And their parents hold the same beliefs, and are doing much of the brainwashing. What is also evil about this is that because the child-brides are not “married” in the eyes of the government, they are "unmarried mothers"and gets scads of government aid. Thus, WE are paying for these old perverts to have sex with their 14yo nieces. Great. :rolleyes: I don’t have anything against multiple partners in marriage, but this disgusts me. And- very little disgusts me.
However, I have seen many other dudes here say “such a such a book is great read” or a “valuable resource” or “tells the truth”- why not this one? I mean, the OP isn’t selling the books, or profiting from their sale AFAIK- nor is he related to Krakauer. And it is not like this book has not been widely talked about as being controversial in many forums. Now, sure, posting a link to where the book can be bought is another thing.
[Moderator Hat ON]
I don’t want pure “product endorsements” in GD, particularly not for an OP. It smacked of spam, and we have no way of knowing that the OP is not associated in any way with the book. If the OP had toned down the “PRODUCT ENDORSEMENT/everyone should buy this!” bit, I probably would have let it slide. Further discussion of this matter should go in the BBQ Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
With that in mind, I hope nobody minds if I point out that the book we’ve been referring to is Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, by Jon Krakauer. Krakauer is best known as the author of Into Thin Air, his excellent first-hand account of the 1996 Mt. Everest climbing disaster.
I am about halfway through Banner, and had planned to start a thread discussing some of the issues it raises. So far, it’s a fascinating story. I’ll have further comments when I’m done.