Gimme a break!

[_Who Knows]

From the LDS.org newsroom:

http://www.LDS.org/newsroom/mistakes/0, ... -1,00.html

Gotta love this quote: "The Associated Press Stylebook has recognized this difficulty and specified that the term Mormon is a nickname that should be applied exclusively to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that it is not accurately applied to any other person or organization"

And this: "Polygamists and polygamist organizations that occasionally make the news are not dissident wings of the Church or fundamentalists."

And this: "because Warren Jeffs is not affiliated with the Mormon church, and since he is not Mormon, reporters should look for more accurate and less misleading descriptions of him in the media."

And then this: "We sometimes hear the argument that because Jeffs and his followers use the Book of Mormon they should be considered Mormons. However, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, evangelicals and a host of other faiths believe in Jesus and claim the Bible as their own, yet all consider themselves separate and distinct faiths. "

Like I said, gimme an effin break.

[_desert_vulture]

From the LDS.org newsroom:

http://www.LDS.org/newsroom/mistakes/0, ... -1,00.html

Gotta love this quote: "The Associated Press Stylebook has recognized this difficulty and specified that the term Mormon is a nickname that should be applied exclusively to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that it is not accurately applied to any other person or organization"

And this: "Polygamists and polygamist organizations that occasionally make the news are not dissident wings of the Church or fundamentalists."

And this: "because Warren Jeffs is not affiliated with the Mormon church, and since he is not Mormon, reporters should look for more accurate and less misleading descriptions of him in the media."

And then this: "We sometimes hear the argument that because Jeffs and his followers use the Book of Mormon they should be considered Mormons. However, Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, evangelicals and a host of other faiths believe in Jesus and claim the Bible as their own, yet all consider themselves separate and distinct faiths. "

Like I said, gimme an effin break.

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives. Because the church teaches that polygamy will be brought back in the Millenium and practiced in heaven, and Section 132 remains in full force, polygamy is still alive and well in the LDS church in my opinion.

Any branch of Mormonism that believes in the Book of Mormon should be considered "Mormon" to some degree. I remember a few years back when the church was trying to distance itself from being called "Mormon" and we were emphasizing being called "members of the CoJCoLDS" but now the momentum has shifted back to being exclusively called "Mormons." Its hard to keep up with the current trend of what we want to be called.

[_Ray A]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives. Because the church teaches that polygamy will be brought back in the Millenium and practiced in heaven, and Section 132 remains in full force, polygamy is still alive and well in the LDS church in my opinion.

Any branch of Mormonism that believes in the Book of Mormon should be considered "Mormon" to some degree. I remember a few years back when the church was trying to distance itself from being called "Mormon" and we were emphasizing being called "members of the CoJCoLDS" but now the momentum has shifted back to being exclusively called "Mormons." Its hard to keep up with the current trend of what we want to be called.

If you look at the Book of Mormon literally, none of them are Mormons, because the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy. The exception made in Jacob 2 is only "to raise up seed", not for exaltation. So in reality, there may be no true Mormons on earth, if you take the Book of Mormon as "the keystone". RLDS may come closest, but they don't believe the Book of Mormon is history.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Polygamy gone right ????

I Have never seen any actual evidence that is is gone....except Governor Leavitt.....Mormon...refused to prosecute.....

Allowed Polygamy to go on and on as long as they SHUT UP about IT

SHUT UP and SING wow freak me out......I must have had blinders on....WOW

[_Pahoran]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives. Because the church teaches that polygamy will be brought back in the Millenium and practiced in heaven, and Section 132 remains in full force, polygamy is still alive and well in the LDS church in my opinion.

That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of "polygamy." Both of those men are living in monogamic marriages. Widowers remarrying is not "practicing polygamy" in any normal usage of those words.

You might plausibly be able to claim that the Church believes in a form of post mortem polygamy; but there is no such "practice" going on, and it would be rather misleading to claim that there was without some rather long-winded explanations. Probably the best way to avoid misleading people is to avoid making the assertion at all.

Any branch of Mormonism that believes in the Book of Mormon should be considered "Mormon" to some degree.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. Maybe someday that is how the majority of people will use that word; but today is not that day.

I remember a few years back when the church was trying to distance itself from being called "Mormon" and we were emphasizing being called "members of the CoJCoLDS" but now the momentum has shifted back to being exclusively called "Mormons." Its hard to keep up with the current trend of what we want to be called.

I think you are seeing a change where none exists. See the Church's style guide at http://www.LDS.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4043-1---15-168,00.html

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Polygamy gone right ????

I Have never seen any actual evidence that is is gone....except Governor Leavitt.....Mormon...refused to prosecute.....

Allowed Polygamy to go on and on as long as they SHUT UP about IT

SHUT UP and SING wow freak me out......I must have had blinders on....WOW

And evidently you still do.

As far as the Church is concerned, yes, polygamy is long gone.

Before you go looking for sinister Mormon conspiracies, consider these questions:

1) In how many other states (and countries) are polygamous ex-Mormon communities active?
2) In how many of those places are the authorities vigorously pursuing polygamists?
3) Just how easy is it to get any kind of successful prosecution against "consenting adults" for any form of sexual misbehaviour these days?
4) How easy is it to get evidence of criminal misbehaviour against alleged or suspected polygamists?

What would you like to see? A witch-hunt scenario, wherein the mere accusation is equivalent to proof? Police breaking down doors at three in the morning on nothing more than a neighbour's head count of women in long skirts, only to discover that a few country cousins have come to stay for the holidays? Children being accosted at school and subjected to long interrogations to make them rat out their families? Which techniques would you like the authorities to borrow from failed totalitarian regimes? How would you be pursuing this matter if it were up to you?

Consider the charges brought against polygamists recently. Jeffs: polygamy? No, rape as an accomplice. Tom Green: polygamy? No, welfare fraud. How did they get Jeffs? Because a girl he forced into an under-age marriage against her will came forward. That's what's needed, SB: hard evidence. Reliable witnesses. Not just suspicions, and certainly not mere prejudice.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_rcrocket]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives.

What do critics of the church find compelling in this argument? I see this point raised continually as a way to bellitle the lives of these men and the Church itself, but I don't see it.

The Church also authorizes a widow to be sealed to another husband. Is this polygamy?

[_truth dancer]

Hey Plutarch,

The Church also authorizes a widow to be sealed to another husband. Is this polygamy?

Last I heard, only dead women can be sealed to more than one of their hustands while a man can be sealed to more than one woman while he is alive.

And, as far as I know the teaching is still that a woman will have to choose which husband she will be with, while a man will be with all of his wives to whom he is sealed (and possibly then some).

~dancer~

I have heard rumor that there has been first presidency permission granted for exceptions to this rule which is stated in the CHI but no concrete proof that this is the case, but even with this exception, my understanding is that a woman will be with one man while men may be with multiple women.

[_Mercury]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives.

What do critics of the church find compelling in this argument? I see this point raised continually as a way to bellitle the lives of these men and the Church itself, but I don't see it.

The Church also authorizes a widow to be sealed to another husband. Is this polygamy?

Yes, it is polygamy.

[_Pahoran]

The LDS church currently practices polygamy, by sealing multiple wives to the same man in the temple. Oaks and Nielson are sealed to their second wives.

What do critics of the church find compelling in this argument? I see this point raised continually as a way to bellitle the lives of these men and the Church itself, but I don't see it.

The Church also authorizes a widow to be sealed to another husband. Is this polygamy?

Yes, it is polygamy.

Really?

"In every state the law allows a man or a woman to be married to only one person of the opposite sex at a time. The crime of having more than one current spouse is called polygamy." From http://www.answers.com/topic/plural-marriage

Widowed persons remarrying is not polygamy. You are indulging in polemical special pleading when you claim that it is.

Regards,
Pahoran