Proof that such groups exist.

That isn’t news. They’ve been in the news, off and on, for decades. In Utah they’re rarely OUT of the news. There have been numerous standoffs with police. Just a few years ago it was polygamist Tom Green on trial. The current FLDS group is decades old, and this is hardly the first time they’ve been in the news.

To call it “news” that such groups exist is like saying you’re “shocked – SHOCKED!” that gambling is going on in Casablanca.

I’m not saying there isn’t a difference. But both FLDS and LDS are followers of the teachings of Joseph Smith…one in its original form, one in a modified (by a later LDS leader) form.

By your logic, Mormons are Christians because we follow the teachings of the Bible in a “modified” (by Joseph Smith and later LDS leaders) form.

Polygamy is still being practiced in this country, by people who claim to follow Joseph Smith, and many people weren’t aware of that until the FLDS raid in Texas.

Again – if this is the first some people have heard that modern-day polygamy exists, they haven’t been paying attention. Mike Wallace asked our last president, Gordon B. Hinckley, about it over a decade ago on 60 Minutes, referring to polygamous groups; Larry King (himself married to a Mormon, and his most enduring marriage so far) also asked Hinckley about polygamy and those groups on his CNN show in the 1990s.

Just because they lay hold of some of Joseph Smith’s teachings doesn’t connect them with the modern LDS church in any meaningful way. They rejected the core of Smith’s teachings: continuing revelation through the leadership structures established by Smith. We follow Joseph’s counsel by following the living prophets. To do otherwise is to follow a path of stagnant, unchanging, spiritually dead documents. Joseph Smith’s entire ministry was based on asking for God’s counsel in the here and now.

That means, polygamy is forbidden to us, for which I’m grateful; I’ve read my ancestors’ journals. Being a good husband to one wife and kids in this century is hard enough. My serial-monogamist friends who are dealing with multiple ex-wives, multiple sets of kids, and multiple sets of inlaws only confirms that.

So while there may be historical connections between those groups and the LDS church of today, there are NO spiritual ties. We reject ther doctrines. They are following laws that are no longer in force. They’re the equivalent of the Christians who demanded that Greek converts be circumsised in accordance with the Law of Moses – a demand Paul condemned explicitly and repeatedly. That law is dead.

As profoundly religious as our founders were, don’t you ever wonder why God is not mentioned once in the U.S. constitution?

RightOFLeft on May 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM

You’re wrong.
Read the Signatory section at the end of the Constitution:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

To whom does “our Lord” refer?
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To what reference date does “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven” refer?
The birth of Jesus Christ.

(Similar to how “and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth” refers to 1787 is the twelfth year in reference to 1776 being the first year of the Independence of the United States of America.)

I refer you what I wrote earlier about the Mayflower Compact. Note that the signatory section of that document reads:

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

At that time, they were required to call their King “Sovereign Lord”. King James was in his 18th year of reign over England, France and Ireland, and in his 54th year of reign over Scotland. But “Anno Domini” is Latin for “In the Year of Our Lord”, and the document ends “Anno Domini 1620″. See the similarities with how our Constitution’s signatory section reads?

Both documents honor our Lord.

I also had friends in Utah who had left polygamous groups.

sulla on May 21, 2008 at 12:41 AM

Proof that such groups exist.

If you refuse to accept the distinction between FLDS and LDS, then there is nothing further to discuss.

I accept the distinction between FLDS and LDS. Just as I accept the distinction between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Protestants. I’m not saying there isn’t a difference. But both FLDS and LDS are followers of the teachings of Joseph Smith…one in its original form, one in a modified (by a later LDS leader) form.

Polygamy is still being practiced in this country, by people who claim to follow Joseph Smith, and many people weren’t aware of that until the FLDS raid in Texas.

In fact, you seem to be SO paranoid of Christians that you come across like a conspiracy theorist. Most Christians are just people that want to be something better than what they are. It’s as simple as that. They don’t want to “rule over” anyone — and they are just as vulnerable as you atheists. If anything, based on the track records of you atheists, Christians have FAR MORE to fear from you, than you have to fear from them.

CyberCipher on May 19, 2008 at 10:12 PM

One of us seems to be paranoid and I think it’s rather clear whom.

You (ie, Saint Olaf) are the one who made the erroneous claim that Christians do not sin.

JohnAGJ on May 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Hi, JohnAGJ. I hope you’re doing well. He means that Christians do not continue to purposely sin knowing it.

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Romans 6:2

live any longer therein. One who has truly been redeemed by faith in Christ’s death for his sins may occasionally slip into sin, but he cannot live in sin.

“Whosoever abideth in him (Christ) sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.” 1 John 3:6

This does NOT mean that Christians never sin, it means they don’t live in a lifestyle of it, and when they do sin, they repent and try not to do it again.

Hope that helps.

When I lived in Utah, their missionaries came to my door, and it was obvious within seconds that they had deviated significantly from core LDS beliefs. I listened out of curiosity, then started asking them questions; it didn’t take long before they were clawing at the door to leave.

I also had friends in Utah who had left polygamous groups. One of my best friends married a bigamist, though she didn’t discover it until they’d been married over ten years. He was booted from the church about two nanoseconds after she found out.

Polygamy is legal in many countries outside the United States, Nigeria being one example. We do not practice it there, and we won’t baptize those who do.

If you refuse to accept the distinction between FLDS and LDS, then there is nothing further to discuss. Believe what you choose, but history and the facts are not on your side.

Yesterday’s stunning and outrageous ruling of the California Supreme Court adds to the demand for a national Constitutional amendment that affirms that marriage is the relationship of one man/one woman. Traditional marriage is not only being attacked by runaway divorce rates from within the institution, but the California ruling, the Massachusetts same sex marriage law, and the polygamist camp in Texas remind us that not everyone seems to have gotten the memo on marriage.

This is not a time to be angry, but broken hearted. We should not hurl insults, but get on our knees and pray that we will have moral courage to stand for truth and what’s right, but the Master’s compassion to do so without rancor. It should be another wake up call as we as a culture keep hitting the snooze alarm.

Mike Huckabee, May 16, 2008 – 01:13 PM

as to that link of yours, it’s a group that appears to exist solely to disparage the LDS church for money. Not exactly an unbiased source.

sulla on May 20, 2008 at 11:35 PM

Nice try. Did you watch the video? These are real people. One of them wrote the book
The Sixth of Seven Wives: Escape from Modern Day Polygamy

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 11:00 PM

Red Pill, you’re being disingenuous.

1. The FLDS church is not affiliated with the LDS church. They broke away over doctrinal issues. LDS church will excommunicate anyone found practicing polygamy; it is not tolerated.

By your reasoning, all Protestants are Catholics because of the church from which they originated, even though they broke away.

As to the “wives-beating” joke – if you’re going to treat an obvious joke as “gospel” then you’re truly grasping at straws. Mitt Romney also joked early in his campaign, “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman…and a woman…and a woman.”

The LDS church gave up polygamy before the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk, when barbershop quartets and bicycles built for two were all the rage – heck, before Teddy Roosevelt stormed San Juan Hill. Before women could vote. Before Utah became a state. Yet some people persist in making that Mormon = “seven brides for one brother” connection.

It’s been almost 120 years – give it a rest, will you?

as to that link of yours, it’s a group that appears to exist solely to disparage the LDS church for money. Not exactly an unbiased source.

Polygamy is not practiced in any authorized or recognized area of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Individuals who attempted to do so after the revelation ending plural marriage more than 100 years ago were excommunicated.

No member practicing polygamy in the church today would be welcomed or allowed to remain in good standing in the church but would be excommunicated. Any suggestion that plural marriage is something that the church winks at is coming from someone who is ill informed about this subject.

Mormon Doc on May 20, 2008 at 9:49 PM

Where do you think those excommunicated people went? There are many many groups who splintered from the “mainstream” Mormon church and who still practice polygamy today. The Fundamentalist LDS is just one example.

As I linked above, there is more going on than meets the eye.

Why did 29Victor agree that polygamy is a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship”?

Why did 29Victor say:

Hey. Calm down now. None of us enjoys beating our wives.

29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Why did you say:

29Victor
“Hey. Calm down now. None of us enjoys beating our wives.”
Good point well made. I also like that you used the plural – wives. It made me feel right at home.

/Polygamist

Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 11:24 PM

Republicans
Candidate # of votes % of total
John McCain 142,854 72.30%
Mike Huckabee 16,238 8.22%
Ron Paul 13,439 6.80%
Uncommitted 10,629 5.38%
Mitt Romney 9,151 4.63%
Rudy Giuliani 3,126 1.58%

I confess that I was thinking precisely the same thing when I read Mormon Doc’s comment, but I didn’t want the thread to erupt into a religious flame war any more than it already had.

I’m a big boy and I’ve studied my faith and the history of the Church. I accept it for what it is an would not shy away from any criticism or concerns about it. If I was ashamed of being Mormon then I should fear that I had converted to the wrong faith.

If there is a question about Joseph Smith being followed because of a cult of personality then it is due to a lack of knowledge about Joseph. Please also note that Joseph Smith never attempted to have people follow him but to turn to Christ. Therefore, any aspersions cast toward him do not approach my faith because my faith is not reliant on any living or dead prophet. My faith, like that of millions of other Christians is built on Christ.

And I do recognize that many Christians don’t consider me a Christian but I do consider them Christians and embrace them as brothers and sisters in faith.

Are you guys really Polygamists? I know there are some out there, I just don’t expect them to openly say so.

See my previous post on this subject.

Mitt Romney has said that the Mormon church no longer practices polygamy. While that is true in some parts of the Mormon church, it is not true in other parts of the Mormon church.

Polygamy is not practiced in any authorized or recognized area of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Individuals who attempted to do so after the revelation ending plural marriage more than 100 years ago were excommunicated.

No member practicing polygamy in the church today would be welcomed or allowed to remain in good standing in the church but would be excommunicated. Any suggestion that plural marriage is something that the church winks at is coming from someone who is ill informed about this subject.

While I respect your feelings about members of my faith I think it is extremely divisive to say some of the things you are saying. I want to be clear though. Are you saying that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints phony Christians? I couldn’t quite tell from your post and I didn’t want to assume.

The antipathy that AP and certain others have for Huckabee on this site is real, however. Despite some heated threads that hammered Romney’s Mormonism, I still think overall, Romney got a fairer shake from the participants here than did Huckabee. I have serious doubts about both men — I’m not sure that either one of them is truly a conservative. I’d still support either of them over the offerings of the Democrats, though. I guess I don’t have real high expectations for politicians, period. I’m pretty much convinced that only liars, thieves, cheats, miscreants, rogues, scoundrels, and scalawags would ever toss their hats into the political arena in the first place. It’s like a prerequisite or somethin’, is it not?

My collie says:

What about me, CC? Would I lie?
Vote collie in ‘08.

Never mind that, collie. I smell wet dog — and as for your breath, it’s atrocious. To the electorate, you’d smell almost as bad as this year’s crop of Republicans.

My collie says:
Go ahead. Throw gasoline on the fire, CC.
CyberCipher on May 20, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Bad blogger! No biscuit!

That is quite a statement coming from someone who follows Joseph Smith.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 4:06 PM

I confess that I was thinking precisely the same thing when I read Mormon Doc’s comment, but I didn’t want the thread to erupt into a religious flame war any more than it already had.

My collie says:

Go ahead. Throw gasoline on the fire, CC.

as a rough count, since 1:30pm you’ve posted 40 comments. The other posters COMBINED total less than 15.

That’s not a conversation, that’s a near-filibuster.

“The lesson the President has learned best—and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him—is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration’s current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.”

–Source

America was not born in 1877 or even in 1776. The Constitution did not create America, America created the Constitution. More specifically, the states created the national government. The states (colonial governments) were a reality long before the Constitution was conceived, and there is no question about their being founded on Christian principles.

– Source (good article, worth a read)

Huckabee is not a “nanny-stater”. Spend two minutes actually paying attention to what he says in the video in this Hot Air post.

Everyone focused on the 12 second bad joke, but did you pay attention to the points he makes about self-government?

Also, try paying attention to what Huckabee said at CPAC.

His conversion to full-spectrum conservatism has been driven by political ambition. Before he ran (and even towards the beginning of his run), he was a one trick pony…social conservatism and that’s it. Just look at how he governed.

it wasn’t Communism that killed all of those people, it was the Communist leadership. It wasn’t the form of government that committed the atrocities, it was people who formed the government, the people who followed Hegelean ethics as interpreted (and perverted) by Marx. An ethic without God, were one’s duty to society is more important than one’s duty to self or to God. Where the value of a human life is determined by that human’s value to society.

What would have stopped them (at least if we get real silly and look at history) is a belief that they had someone to answer to after they died, or that there was a good greater than the good of the state. Even when the Church was at its most corrupt it never matched the killin’ power of the athiest state.

I thank God every day for the freedoms that Americas enjoy, the freedoms that, according to [the Declaration of Independence] He gave me and, thus, are intrinsic to me.

Unlike the “rights” given to man by the government in an athiest state (the U.S.S.R. had a Constitution too, ya know). “Rights” that are completely dependent upon the whim of the State.

29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 2:00 AM

Good post.

Our situation is nothing like the former Soviet Union or China. We’re a free society. If people are becoming less religious that’s hardly the state’s fault, is it? The issue isn’t religion, it’s religious liberty, and the only way to protect that is to strictly apply the first amendment.

RightOFLeft on May 20, 2008 at 12:51 AM

If we don’t defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic, we could easily end up like the following country, highlighted in a recent DrudgeReport link:

In a nation that has not tasted and – with very few exceptions – does not expect or demand justice or freedom, all that matters is stability and security.

…

You can forget any talk from the new President about “stamping out” corruption. This social and economic disease is insidious and rampant.

…

In a country where the “separation of powers” has become a bad joke, the law courts are no less corrupt.

…

The threat of prosecution for tax fraud is the [Government’s] weapon of choice against anyone who dares to challenge its hegemony.

When [citizen], once the richest man in [country], used his oil wealth to promote human rights and democracy, [fascist leader] detected a threat to his throne.

The [citizen] was duly arrested and convicted of fraud. He now languishes in jail where he is in the third year of an eight-year prison sentence.

…

Almost every national radio and television station is now controlled directly or indirectly by the state, and the same applies to every newspaper of any influence.

…

That diminishing number who have the courage to investigate or speak out against the abuses perpetrated by the rich and powerful very soon find themselves out of a job – or, in an alarming number of cases, on the receiving end of a deadly bullet.

Some 20 journalists have been killed in suspicious circumstances since [fascist leader] came to office. No one has yet been convicted for any of these crimes.

[fascist leader] calls the system over which he presides “sovereign democracy”. I think a better term is “cryptofascism”

…

In the absence of any experience of accountability or transparency – the basic ingredients of an open society – even the most thoughtful [citizens] are prone to say: “[We] need a strong man at the center.”

Any guesses what country that is?

All 50, yes all 50, of the state constitutions mention God.

Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Yep. Many had official churches too, the last being disestablished in Connecticutt in 1818. The Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the States until after the 14th Amendment.