All of the buzz about the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints lately has prompted questions about polygamy among Mormons and how the "Mormon Church" is related to the FLDS church. I think most people get (because many outlets have taken the trouble to point out) that the "mainstream" church and this particular sect are not the same, but a lot of people think that we are sympathetic to, or wink at, the kinds of behavior going on in the sect. Since I am the token Mormon on this site, I figured I'd shed little light on the subject.
First of all, "Mormon" is not the correct name for a member of my church. In fact, it got its start as a derogatory term. "Mormon Church" is not an appropriate term. Because of 175 years of usage, the term "Mormon" has become acceptable under certain circumstances (see the following link for its uses).
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide We don't get bent out of shape over it, but really calling me a "Mormon" is about the same as calling a Muslim a "Mohammedan."
That said, to understand where my church differs from other sects with a common starting point, let me give a brief history of the church and its splinter groups.
Joseph Smith, Jr. founded "
The Church of Christ" (by that name) on April 6, 1830. Today there are several groups that claim to come from that church. By that name choice we mean that the original church that Christ established 2000 years ago became corrupted over time and that Joseph Smith, Jr. actually 'restored" the original church. So we are, we believe, the original church restored.
Several years later, the name of the church was modified to "
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." The addition of "Latter Day Saints" was a distinction. Practically speaking, there were several churches that called themselves the "Church of Christ" or something similar and were in no way related to our church. Further, in discussing the gospel, it is sometimes necessary to distinguish between the restored church and the original church. As an example, when people ask "Was Peter a Mormon?" the answer is yes and no. He was not, of course, a member of the restored church since he did not live in this dispensation (a term which in this context means, at its simplest, a particular era in time). Yet he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, and as we claim to be the restored church, he can be said to be a member of the same church we are. "Latter Day Saints" is a term describing those people who are members of the restored church. This is as opposed to "Ancient Day Saints" or members of the original church. "Saints" in this context refers to all who follow Christ, not to certain specific "holy" persons such as Apostles, martyrs and the like. Though I am no "saint," I am, nevertheless a Saint. So the "LDS" portion of our name comes from that distinction, but the IMPORTANT part of our name is the Church of Jesus Christ. That's why we try to avoid calling ourselves "Mormons" or using the inappropriate shortcut "The Church of the Latter Day Saints."
So the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints continued with this name until 1844, the year that Joseph Smith was martyred. At his death, a dispute arose about succession in the Presidency. The church leadership consisted of a First Presidency, with the President (Prophet) and two counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Joseph had stated that the "keys" to the kingdom would be passed on to the Quorum of the Twelve at his death. But disputes arose anyway. Some believed that his counselors should become his successors like a Vice President might take over for the President in our government. Some believed that the mantle of Prophet should fall on his son, Joseph Smith III. Others believed Brigham Young, as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, should assume the Presidency of the Church.
This confusion resulted in the first split in the church. Several splinter groups were formed. Among those, the most prominent was the group that followed Joseph Smith's wife and son back to Jackson County Missouri. At some point, there was apparently a court decision made (according to this group) that gave legal succession to Joseph Smith III and made it the legitimate successor. For some reason, this group decided to change its name to "
The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." By that name it no longer exists. It split into at least two factions sometime within the last decade or so and now that name remains in the legal custody of "
The Community of Christ" which downplays its "Mormon" roots and has more traditional Christian beliefs. The other group "
The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" sticks to its roots, with family members of Joseph Smith still in charge to this day, as far as I know. Neither of these groups EVER went to Utah or practiced polygamy. They reject outright the idea that Joseph Smith revealed or practiced polygamy.
The rest of the "Mormons" (so called, incidentally, because in addition to the Bible we believe in the "Book of Mormon" a compilation of Ancient American writings abridged by the Prophet Mormon) united behind Brigham Young and moved to Utah. They retained the name "
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and became the church that today most people know. After arrival in Utah, the practice of polygamy became public and fierce opposition to the practice began to appear. Much of it was based on the same sort of concerns that people have about the FLDS sect today. The idea was that women were being forced to marry against their will and this isolated sect had all sorts of evil things going on. In reality only a small percentage of the members of the church were actually involved in polygamy. But some dissidents claimed to have been forced into these marriages against their will, or seeing others who were, and public outrage was inflamed. Personally, I have no problem believing that some of this was true. After all, women (especially in those less enlightened times) were often forced into marriages by unscrupulous men in the monogamous world. (Think of the caricature of the villain tying the poor girl to the railroad tracks to force her into marriage.) Polygamy would be an even bigger opportunity for that sort of abuse. But largely, polygamy was just a lifestyle practiced by Mormons much as it has been in other cultures and times throughout the world.
The people, and ultimately the government, however, could not tolerate this behavior. Over several years, the government did more and more to stop the practice. Statehood was denied to "Deseret" (eventually named Utah for the Ute Indians) while polygamy was in practice. Prosecution against church leaders was started. Brigham Young was removed as territorial governor and an unpopular government representative was put in his place. He claimed that the Mormons were rebelling against him. US troops were sent to Utah to quell the "Mormon uprising" and the US Army still has a battle streamer on its flag for the "Mormon war." (Some say, incidentally, that future Confederate General Johnston was actually using the Mormon issue as an excuse to get pro-Southern forces in place in Utah for a drive to California in the event of a secession.) Though only token harrassment occurred, passions were high. The US Congress passed laws disenfranchising the Church and its members. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court under Chief Justice Morrison Waite ruled that laws against polygamy were not a violation of religious freedom.
Eventually, the church was forced to stop polygamy. But many claimed the practice was still ongoing. So in 1890, the President of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, officially announced that polygamy was no longer supported by the church and that all plural marriages must be stopped immediately. This "Official Declaration" eventually was adopted into the standard works of the church and became scripture. (See
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1 ). Future polygamous marriages would result in excommunication of the guilty parties. As a result, the government stopped prosecutions against church members and restored the rights and property of the church. Utah became a state in 1896. Additionally, the government tactily agreed to turn a blind eye on those people ALREADY in plural marriages, figuring that the practice would die a natural death within a generation and that creating, effectively, a large group of widows and orphans was not a great idea. So while no polygamous marriages were performed after 1890, the lifestyle continued for a while afterwards among church members.
Several people, however, thought that President Woodruff had become a "fallen" prophet. So other spinter groups were formed. Many of them broke away immediately, others took decades before the split. (I'm guessing these latter were the sons and daughters of those original plural marriages who had grown up in the lifestyle - and probably more than a few oportunists.) Several groups collectively referred to as "Fundamentalists" faced off against each other, pitting prophet against prophet. Many became violent within themselves and against competing polygamist sects. There were even a few attacks against the now non-polygamist mainstream church. Zealous prosecution of polygamists was no longer a priority, but when violence became a problem law enforcement came into play.
Some people feel like mainstream Mormons refrained from prosecuting polygamists out of sympathy for the lifestyle or because we secretly approve of the practice. That comes from the habit of associating polygamy with the Church. Polygamy is only a very minor factor in church doctrine. We have gotten along very well without it for well over a century. We do not condone or wink at such behavior. More importantly, a far more vital component of LDS doctrine is proper authority. The President of of the FLDS church claims to be a prophet, in direct succession (through John Taylor, third President of the main church) of Joseph Smith, Jr. That places him in direct opposition to Thomas S. Monson, and all of the Presidents of the Church from Wilford Woodruff on. Further, whoever his predecessors in the Presidency of that sect are would be in a similar position. Even if we somehow approved of, or viewed as harmless the sects practices, we would have no affinity with a sect we consider apostate for a much more important reason. As far as any law enforcement agencies that might have mainstream Mormons as members, they would not view the sect with any sympathy. As far as the church itself (the mainstream church, that is) we would have no authority whatsoever over that sect. They do not acknowledge us in any way, except as apostates from the "true" church, and we believe them to be in pretty much the same condition.
Obviously, even if there are those who view polygamy of itself as a matter of cultural difference, when it involves twelve-year olds (and, if we can believe one former member of the church, even molestation of boys) it is a far more serious situation. In this day and age if three or more consenting adults choose to live together, irrespective of gender or lifestyle, it's getting to the point of anything goes. But when one of the members of this sort of "marriage" is barely a teenager, it is time to draw the line. I will say, however, that the wholesale dismantling of numerous families and the incredibly intrusive manner in which it is being done looks more like a witchhunt than a rescue mission. It may be that this sort of thing is warranted, given that it appears that the sect and its leadership condones forced marriage of children and other sexual perversions. But given the history of government interference in religion in general and Mormonism in particular, I'm more than a little skeptical about how much of this is truth and how much is crusading.
Nevertheless, given that there are so many churches (many with very similar names) who have widely varying beliefs, people (quite understandably) think that we are either one and the same or just different facets of a single idea. The church is relatively young. The same sort of splintering has occurred with our religion as with mainstream Christianity (of which our sect is just another "spin off") and other faiths. Calling an FLDS person a "Mormon" is much like calling a Lutheran a Catholic. Our roots are the same, but we are not the same faith at all.
One could argue (and some have) that making such a distinction is much like mainstream Christians claiming that Mormons are not Christians. It's a valid point, but there is a difference. Those Christians who disclaim Mormons as not "true" Christians are talking about spiritual beliefs. They don't generally care that we don't use alcohol, tobacco or coffee. They probably approve, in principle, of our paying of tithes, prohibiting extramarital sex or keeping the sabbath holy. It is our beliefs about God, scripture and other spiritual matters that define our faith to them - and that is fair. We reject FLDS and other splinter groups as part of our faith not because of the spiritual aspects. We may not doctrinally agree with those sects - or other Christian faiths for that matter - but we believe ALL churches have some truth. We would view the FLDS church as doctrinally no different from other sects. It is their practices that concern us. We disagree, often strongly, with Baptist philosophy, but we do not view their practices as un-Christian. We believe Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans and all of those other sects are Christian, though we differ with them on matters of doctrine. But when a sect engages in clearly un-Christian behavior - that Westover Baptist group comes to mind - it is not their doctrines but their behaviors that call for denunciation. The eternal state of FLDS members is a matter for God to decide, and each member is an individual. Whatever their sins, Christ's atonement is available to them, as it is for all mankind. But as I am sure many Baptists wish to clarify that they do not condone or wish to be associated with the nutcases at Westover, we feel similarly about the FLDS sect. Just because we share part of a name does NOT mean we are the same, or even sympathetic.
Here endeth the lesson.
