Orson Scott Card: Big Love? Big Deal

National Review Online ^ | March 13, 2009 | Orson Scott Card

[neverdem]

---

March 13, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

Big Love? Big Deal
Yes, Mormons are targets, but let’s not get too excited about it.

By Orson Scott Card

In the aftermath of Proposition 8, it’s open season on Mormons, and the producers of HBO’s series Big Love are in the best position to give the Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) a big slap.

The series focuses on members of one of several splinter groups that have left the Mormon Church over the issue of polygamy. To understand what this means to Mormons, it’s worth indulging in a little history.

When the Mormon prophet Wilford Woodruff declared in 1890 that it was God’s will that Latter-day Saints no longer take multiple wives, some Mormons clung to the “Principle of Plural Marriage” and rejected the authority of the president of the church.

This is akin to what happened when Protestants declared that they would no longer follow the pope, and polygamist sects are about as Mormon now as Baptists are Catholic.

The fastest way to get yourself excommunicated from the Mormon Church is to advocate plural marriage.

But the polygamist sects still do most of their recruiting among Mormons, and there is a constant struggle between the church and the polygamists.

Many of these polygamists still believe that it is in Mormon temples that their marriages must be solemnized. The temple is a focal point in their religion — but if they admit they’re polygamists, they can’t get in.

So it actually makes artistic sense for episodes of Big Love to center on their effort to get into the temple. It reflects the real concerns of some polygamists, and it is accurate to show the official church as doing its best to keep them out.

You’re not supposed to enter the temples, once they’re dedicated, unless you’re a member of the church who is keeping the major commandments — which polygamists most flagrantly are not.

Big Love is not doing anything new. Anti-Mormon groups have been describing, depicting, or showing ersatz versions of the temple ceremonies for many years. Anyone who wants to know what goes on in the temples can find out with very little effort. So why are we Mormons upset about Big Love’s foray into anti-Mormon “exposé”?

It’s offensive when believers in one religion hold up the sacred rites of another religion to public ridicule. So we’re hurt — but we’re not surprised.

Mormons have always been the exception to America’s policy of religious tolerance. Throughout our history in America, Mormons have been oppressed by government, killed or driven out by mobs, slandered, and libeled — always by fellow Americans who professed to believe in religious tolerance.

So while we don’t like what Big Love is doing, we’re not doing much about it. We’ve learned by observation that protests and boycotts merely increase the publicity, and therefore the viewership, of such hostile productions as the Big Love temple episode.


So the church’s official advice to its members is: Ignore it. (See this, for more.)

My favorite response came from Terrance D. Olson, a Brigham Young University professor who does research in family studies. His essay in Meridian Magazine is a lovely explanation of how tolerance works and why it elevates everyone. Those who refuse to respect other people’s sacred things, he says, hurt themselves most of all.

My own essay at MormonTimes.com, published by the church-owned Deseret News, strongly urges my fellow Mormons not to write angry letters, because anger never persuades anybody, and expressing it isn’t particularly Christ-like.

Most Mormons are seeing the Big Love temple episode in the context of the recent outpouring of hatred and bile from those who most vehemently opposed Proposition 8. Mormons have been targeted for business boycotts; some have lost their jobs because they contributed to the campaign to defend marriage.

The result is that few of us have any desire to act as the worst of our opponents have acted. After someone has boycotted a friend’s business, it makes it a bit harder for you to want to call for a boycott.

By and large, while we’d prefer that everybody handle differences of opinion peacefully, we’d rather be persecuted than be the persecutors. The few times in our history when we have departed from that principle, the results have shamed us for generations. Tolerance works better.

What Mormons keep foremost in mind is this: We’re a worldwide church. We might be going through a rough patch in America right now, as we butt heads with the oppressive New Puritans of the American Left, but that has nothing to do with how the Mormon Church is growing in Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, or Taiwan.

Big Love is just an entertainment; nothing they do will diminish the sacredness of what goes on inside our temples.

Our primary work is helping people in and out of the church to live a more Christ-like life. Now and then, when a deep moral issue is involved, we get involved in political action. But when we do, we expect that others won’t like it, and we take our lumps.

The more they attack us, the more people they bring to us as allies and, occasionally, as converts to our faith. So rave on, brothers and sisters!

— Orson Scott Card is a novelist and critic. For his take on Proposition 8, as a Mormon and prior to its passage, go here.

[AppyPappy]

But the Mormon Church was born during a turbulent time in American history. It sounds like they gave as good as they got. Early readings from the church showed quite a bit of pride in the battling nature of the church. There was no victimhood until the feds came down hard on polygamy. The Church sent the polygs away with the hope they could return but the polygs were so adamant that they were “righter” that the church that the church cut off all ties.

[Colofornian]

From Card's article: Now and then, when a deep moral issue is involved, we get involved in political action. But when we do, we expect that others won’t like it, and we take our lumps.

Yes, there's been two key protecting marriage ballots in CA that LDS have stepped up to the plate & hit a HR (2008 wasn't the first time), but across-the-board "deep moral" issues drawing major Mormon influence? (I wish it was true in pro-life issues, for example)

LDS tend to be generally pro-life attitudinally and pro-child due to its theology, but pro-life activist wise? (That's much rarer)

LDS pro-lifers can't even get their own church leadership to cut out all the exceptions for abortion, let alone address the broader culture.

Exceptions: Mom's health; if the abortionist says so; if God says so in prayer (so that even the Mormon god becomes a before-the-fact supposed accomplice-to-murder); if the incest perpetrator says so of his victim; etc.

[Elsie]

When the Mormon prophet Wilford Woodruff declared in 1890 that it was God’s will that Latter-day Saints no longer take multiple wives, some Mormons clung to the “Principle of Plural Marriage” and rejected the authority of the president of the church.

Uh... That's not EXACTLY right...

---

---

---

1890: Manifesto (a statement denouncing polygamy)

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage...I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws..."

~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President

---

---

 

The Mormon church Organization; based in Salt Lake City, does not practice Polygamy any more.

They decided to stop the practice for fear of losing all their worldly goods.

It was banned in 1890!.

  

---

---

 

 

    OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

---

---

---

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

---

---

---

 

EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us.

(Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

 

 

 

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it.

 

(From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

 

---

 

 

 

 

What kind of  'Leadership' is THIS???

 

compared to...

 

 

 

 

Hebrews 11:35-40
 35.  Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.
 36.  Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.
 37.  They were stoned ; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated--
 38.  the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground. 
 

 

or compared to...

 

Acts 4:19.  But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.

 

---

---

 

So much for an 'Everlasting Covenant' that thundered out of Heaven!!!

 

Well; it DID last about 47 years!

[Colofornian]

Excellent post, Elsie. You delineate clearly that if Wilford Woodruff was spouting the Mormon god's "will" on the polygamy, then the Mormon god has to be the most mealy-mouthed entity there is. (Therefore, Orson Card is soundly mistaken to present the Mormon P.R. that he was a mouthpiece of "God's will" on the subject).

Elsie did a great job of noting key mealy-mouthed phrases of Woodruff in his manifesto:

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to ME... [A true prophet of God speaking forth His will would say "to us" or "to you"]

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question... [Oh, so that's how the Mormon god works...he doesn't give direct directives, he just puts forth suggestions in the forth of a question??...and again, context of the entire manifesto is important to consider here]

...IF we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it... [Well, the fact is, they didn't "stop it." LDS leaders, many based in Mexico, went on to solemnize another 220-250 plural marriages over the next 20 years...Besides, what kind of "prophet" talks in terms of "if" when He's reflecting God's major course-changing will?]

...You have to judge for yourselves [OK how many new directives clearly outlining God's will are presented as this -- "well, judge for yourselves" ??? If this was the Lord's will, then who is this false prophet to advise his followers to judge the Lord on this matter?]

[Vigilanteman]

Well, I guess the same thing could be said about conservatives. Because most of us want to just be left alone as well. But if we don't proselyte the enemedia will fill the sheeple with statist propaganda.

If the Catholics, Baptists or other religion with significant numbers voted like the Mormons, liberals would be out of business. So they must be doing something right . . .

[Colofornian]

Mormons have always been the exception to America’s policy of religious tolerance.

Well, from Joseph Smith's opening vision, now elevated by Mormons as "Scripture," Smith labeled ALL (not some, ALL) Christian professors [professors as in professing faith] as "corrupt"...he labeled ALL (not some, ALL) their creeds as an "abomination" to the Mormon god...and he said they were all "wrong" and none of these Christian sects were worth joining.

Well, since Smith claimed these things appeared to him before a single soul knew about a Book or Mormon or a church of his, then I guess Orson Card is right in a weird sort of way: Mormons have [indeed] always been the exception to America’s policy of religious tolerance simply because Smith was 100% intolerant...
...of every Christian creed...
...and every Christian professor...
...and every Christian sect...
...and every Christian church...

And then latter-19th century Mormons "ratified" this intolerant position toward Christians as "Scripture." (And now contemporary Mormons who believe all of the Pearl of Great Price is "Scripture" also ratify this posture of tremendous intolerance...to the degree that they send 60,000+ missionaries around the world -- with one of the top 2-3 subjects of conversation being the supposed 100% apostasy of the Christian church)

From Orson Card's article: Throughout our history in America, Mormons have been oppressed by government... [Well, what occurred in Missouri was a two- sided mess -- with the LDS at times being just as provocative as gvt reps...and if Card means what happened in the 1880s when the feds were putting polygamists in jail, then if that's the "martyrdom" he's claiming, so be it]

From Orson Card's article: ...killed or driven out by mobs... [Again, if he's speaking about Missouri, it was two-sided violence...if he's talking about Joe & Hyrum Smith being slain, Joe Smith shot two people before dying...nobody but nobody today would wonder about an inmate today being shot in a jail if such a prisoner had a loaded gun on his possession...and of course, Card doesn't mention the two-sided "killed or driven out by mobs" when it came to the very first 9/11 American act of terrorism when Mormons executed 120+ children, women and men as part of the Mountain Meadow Massacre...I guess it's always convenient to play the role of victim even when your spiritual and family ancestors were the mass-murder perps]

From Orson Card's article: ...slandered, and libeled — always by fellow Americans who professed to believe in religious tolerance.

Orson, didn't your family teach you that when you criticize, you should be specific? Is the above true? Maybe? Sometimes? Perhaps? Who knows? (It's easy to be "right" as a writer when you always speak in vague generalities.)

[Colofornian]

If the Catholics, Baptists or other religion with significant numbers voted like the Mormons, liberals would be out of business.

It's a proven fact, based upon the early 2008 Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and Wyoming primaries, that LDS in all those states voted anywhere from 92-96% for a fellow Mormon candidate.

So, let's take your claim and apply it with this in mind: Suppose 92-96% of all Baptists had voted for fellow Baptist Huckabee? (Would that have put liberals out of business? I don't think so)

Or, take the 2004 election. Suppose 92-96% of all Catholics had voted for a fellow Catholic candidate like John Kerry? (Would that have put liberals out of business? Just the opposite).

(This is what happens when you make sloppy claims based on the reality that some nice Mormon missionaries came & helped you out in your garden one day.)

The fact is, LDS engaged in identity politics. And it actually might surprise people that I think they had EVERY right to do so, and would defend their voter sovereignty to vote for who they thought was the best candidate -- even if they did -- or especially if they did -- take the worldviews of other-worldly dimensions into consideration. (It's that kind of religious liberty that makes our Republic great)

[Vigilanteman]

Read my post. I'm not talking about voting for fellow co-religionists. I'm talking about voting for conservatives or, at least, the most conservative candidate in a two person contest.

A more meaningful comparison to your claim would be to see how Mormons in Nevada voted for Harry Reid against an evangelical protestant like John Ensign. You'll expect some cross-over voting because it is natural that some people of any demographic group are non-political and will vote based on tribal affiliations.

Further, Duncan Hunter picked up his only delegate in the Wyoming caucus and Fred Thompson picked up his first delegates in Nevada. You can look that up too. By the time the Utah and Arizona primaries rolled around, McCain, Romney and Huckabee were the only viable candidates.

So it is quite understandable that they would pick the one which at least was respectful of conservatives. The fact that he was a member of the same tribe didn't hurt either.

So my statement stands and you are still a dumba**!

[TruthWillWin]

Sometimes one is too many. I’ve had more than one but never at the same time.

[reaganaut]

There was no victimhood until the feds came down hard on polygamy.

---

That is not exactly true. The attitude of victim hood began long before the feds got involved. It progressed more and more with every move.

[Choose Ye This Day]

That’s a good one!

[Skenderbej]

LOL! Quick, hide the screen, my wife is coming!

[higgmeister]

OK I'll bite, what is this Proposition Eight he refers to? And why is it so important to him?

[higgmeister]

OK, I followed the link, so my next question is why should an anti-gay marriage referendum cause new waves of persecution against Mormons? Do the lite loafers think Mormons are the only religion against gay marriage? What’s the deal here?

[Colofornian]

Do the lite loafers think Mormons are the only religion against gay marriage? What’s the deal here?

For one, LDS contributed somewhere around 40% of the funds to pass the ballot initiative. (Kudos to LDS for that)

Two, LDS are only about 2% of the population and already have ostracized mainstream culture with its social shenanigans of past open racism and polygamy -- and that's past and future polygamy [and supposedly present in the colony of Kolob]. I say "future" because LDS leaders have taught in our lifetime that the Mormon jesus will re-institute polygamy when he returns.

So the provocative Mormons [please note that their social shenanigans provoked others; most of the time it wasn't the other way around] thereby become an "easy" identifiable target for homosexuals and the social left.

So, what's a social conservative to do?

#1 We should stand with the Mormons in defending them re: Prop 8.
#2 And -- we should acknowledge that for the past 153 years, the Republicans were way ahead of the Democrats in opposing slavery and polygamy. In 1856, the fledgling Republican party set its social agenda upon eradicating what they called then "the twin relics of barbarism" -- slavery and polygamy.

Too many FREEPER and other conservatives think that if we critique the LDS we are joining in the social left's campaign against Prop 8. The answer to that is "you need a history lesson." The Republican party has taken on slavery & racism & protecting monogamy since our very birth. This isn't some new "sudden" campaign. This is who we are at our core.

So keep all this in mind when LDS conservative social leaders like Orson Card, who is BTW, very solid on most of these social issues, plays the historical victim card of "Woe is me. LDS have been oppressed and persecuted." A good chunk of what he's talking about is grassroots Republicans and their leaders fighting the Mormon polygamy and racist agenda from 1856 on.

'Tis too easy for them to play this victim card minus qualifications. For example, they could say, "Woe is us. A Mormon Democrat from Utah was elected to Congress in 1898. They wouldn't seat him. They sent him home. We're an oppressed, persecuted people."

But what's the Paul-Harvey-rest of the story? Well, what they likely won't tell you is that this elected candidate, B.H. Roberts, took a third wife around 1894 -- about 4 years after the LDS supposedly "shut the door" on polygamy. [And why won't tell you? Because LDS leaders and apologists have successfully propagandized into their minds that polygamy ended in 1890 and that was that...not mentioning that LDS leaders solemnized another 220-250 plural marriages between 1890 and 1910]

In 1898, riled-up Republicans and others delivered a 28-roll, 7-million signature banners to Congress to influence them to not seat Roberts. Congress u-turned Roberts back home.

This is our free republic heritage operating at full cultural speed ahead!

[Elsie]

If the Catholics, Baptists or other religion with significant numbers voted like the Mormons, liberals would be out of business. So they must be doing something right . . .

[Elsie]

For one, LDS contributed somewhere around 40% of the funds to pass the ballot initiative. (Kudos to LDS for that)

That means that OTHERs did the 60%!!!

[OneWingedShark]

>It would be nice if we had a few more of those types >(Democrats that actually know something about the Constitution.)
>Heck, it would be nice if we had a few more Republicans like that!

Agreed, Agreed.

[Tennessee Nana]

Placemark

[greyfoxx39]

BTTT