“I am intrigued by the term “worthy members”.
Posted on 05/06/2008 10:18:16 AM PDT by Utah Girl
The historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took issue Monday with a New York Times opinion piece comparing FLDS polygamists in Texas to 19th century Mormons.
In a statement released Monday, church historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen took exception to author Timothy Egan's portrayal in the Times.
"Mr. Egan's cavalier comparison of FLDS polygamy practices with those of 19th century Latter-day Saints is historically unsupported and simply wrong," wrote Elder Jensen, a member of the church's Quorums of Seventy. "By implication, he also unfairly impugns the integrity of all Latter-day Saint marriages and families, the very institutions they hold most dear."
In a piece posted on the Times Web site April 23, Egan called the polygamists in west Texas "1870s Stepford wives" and "men with their low monotones and pious, seeming disregard for the law on child sex." And Egan drew parallels between present-day FLDS members and 1800s Mormons.
In his response, Elder Jensen wrote, "The conditions surrounding the practice of polygamy in Texas today bear little resemblance to the plural marriage practiced by Mormons more than a century ago," he said. "As thoughtful historians know, a serious study of history does not impose contemporary understandings and sensibilities onto an interpretation of earlier time periods."
Elder Jensen also said Egan's tacit claim that 19th century Mormon women were subservient and backward was false. Women played an integral part in LDS culture, held jobs and were politically active, Elder Jensen said.
"For a long time ... the church was at odds with basic American ideals, and not just because old guys sanctioned marital sex with dozens of teenage girls," Egan wrote. "What you see in Texas — in small part — is a look back at some of the behavior of Mormonism's founding fathers."
"Smith was fortunate enough to find a religious cover for his desire," Egan continued. "His polygamy 'revelation' was put into The Doctrine and Covenants, one of three sacred texts of Mormonism."
In his response, Elder Jensen wrote that men and women often married at a younger age than might be considered acceptable today. A girl marrying at 15 was not uncommon and the common-law marriage age for women was 12, he said. Women were not forced into marriages and divorces were "readily granted," Elder Jensen wrote.
Attempts Monday night to contact Egan for comment were unsuccessful.
Online:
• Column by New York Times Op-Extra columnist Timothy Egan (April 23)
• Response by Elder Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (May 5)
Why do you hate my wife!?
SHE says I got a LOT of my honeydew list accomplished during my, ahem, downtime.
--ElsieDude(Mormons: ya just gotta love 'em!)
OH?
I'VE noticed that MORMONs manage to make themSELVES known in about two posts!
Last week, during my evening walk around the neighboorhood, I saw a fellow out by the streetlight, seaching intently for something.
When I asked, he said he'd dropped his car key as he left the house.
"Let me help," I said, "just where were you when you noticed it was gone?"
"Back there about 4 houses.", was the reply.
"Then why don't you look back THAT way?", says I.
He said, "Because the light is better here."
|
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! 18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” 20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” |
And I’ve told you a million times to quit exaggerating!
Matthew 13:11
He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.1 Corinthians 2:7
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.1 Corinthians 4:1
So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.
John 7:4
No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world."John 18:20
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.Romans 2:16
This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.2 Corinthians 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.Revelation 2:24-25
24. Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you):
25. Only hold on to what you have until I come.
Judging from the time stamp - May 07, 2008 3:38:40 AM - Good Morning is more like it!
(Maybe you guys are a LOT farther west than I am!)
And...Regardless, you won't find anything that supports the LDS contention that 19th century women regularly married in their early teenage years. It was not a commmonplace occurence in society but...it was in the Mormon society (just like the FLDS).
The LDS are unsuccessfully using inaccuracies to distance themselves from the FLDS. In reality, the FLDS, of today, looks, believes and behaves pretty much like the LDS prior to 1890.
When you ask Mormons how their doctrines differ from the FLDS, other than polygamy, you don't get a response. That in itself is telling.
That person (Joseph Smith) was the prophet of the LDS organization and set the doctrines and practices, which were implemented throughout the LDS organization.
This same person/prophet is the person responsible, among some others (Brigham Young, Taylor, and so forth), for establishing the doctrines and practices of FLDS organization.
In fact, the FLDS claim that they more closely follow Joseph Smith's prophecies than the compromised LDS (1890 Great Accommodation) do. Do you disagree with the FLDS? If so, why?
As I said, I don’t care if people don’t answer my questions. I care when they respond to my questions with answers to questions I didn’t ask, or worse, accusations about what I believe based on a misreading of my questions. Or just blatant character attacks in place of answers or even discussion of the question or other questions.
For example, if I ask “what should a parent have available to prove their kid is theirs”, I don’t mind people ignoring me, or saying that my question is stupid.
It’s responses like “why are you defending child rapists”, or “you must be a Mormon”, or “How many wives to do have”, or “know any child molesters personally”.
I can respond to them — and people have a right to say what they want. But I criticize those responses because they are not helpful, nor to they encourage discussion and learning.
Some of them do, and I imagine some of them don’t because why set yourself up for unnecessary ridicule.
In fact, I’ve noticed what appears to be a concerted attempt to fight fire with water here, meaning a lot of posts in the religion forums about LDS teachings that are uncontroversal and generally supported by conservatives.
But my comment regards the common occurance on these threads of freepers responding to comments by saying “are you a mormon”, or “you must be a mormon”, or “are you wearing your magic underwear”.
My response is to chide people for ad hominen arguments rather than dealing with the issues with facts.
Hmm. Using your analogy, the claims about historical documents were dropped here, so I should be looking here to see if people have links to them.
I use google, but sometimes you have to get just the right words on a search to find something.
I have found lots of references to the age people married. I even found a chart that shows perfectly what I was discussing about statistics. In the chart, the average age for women to be married was 22, but a MAJORITY of the women got married before they were 20.
But the graph was on a blog which didn’t have citations to unbiased sources. The only other stuff I found were competing numbers from pro-LDS and anti-LDS web sites. I didn’t have time to poke through each one to find if someone had a good unbiased source reference.
The purpose of my disclaimer is not to provoke argument, but to clearly state that my post contains speculation, and that I have no evidence to refute the claims of the post I’m responding to. I think that is rare enough that some people don’t recognise it as such, and think it’s some sort of attack.
In the absense of verified facts, if you want to have an opinion, it must be based on whatever evidence you can find. Some people just state opinions as facts with no references. I am trying to be more informative.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I try very hard not to discuss other people religion in a political forum.
It could be they simply don’t want to get into a discussion of comparative religion. Ask me what makes my religion different from another, and I’ll be more comfortable describing my religion, and letting you figure out what’s different about it.
being a political forum, I try to avoid discussing the details of my religious beliefs.
I saw a chart that showed that in 1850, a MAJORITY of girls were married before they turned 20, even though the AVERAGE age was 22. I don’t know that the chart was backed by unbiased evidence, so I still cannot claim truth, but it was a data point — one easily refuted if I can find an actual link to the 1850 census.
However, even that chart didn’t claim “early teenage years”. although it showed a fair number younger than 18. If I read someone post a claim that women “regularly married in their early teenage years”, I would ask for a reference source to prove it, just as I am looking for references the other way.
As to post 54, I’ve already noted that the average marriage age is meaningless if you are debating how many married at a certain age — and is in fact biased high because there is a hard limit on the younger side, and virtually no limit on the high side.
Let me explain more. A lot of people are used to “average” when talking about distributions which follow a bell curve, meaning equal weighting on either side.
But the marriage age curve is not a bell curve, it is heavily skewed to the left.
For example, in post 54, they mention that in one area, the AVERAGE age of marriage was 21.4 for women. Now, the YOUNGEST a woman is going to get married is 12. The OLDEST they could get married is whatever age they die, but you could say most will have married by the time they are, say 50.
The distance from 12 to 21.4 is 11.4 years. The distance from 21.4 to 50 is 28.6 years. The curve is skewed. For every woman who waits until 30 to get married, in order for the average to be 21.4, you’ll need almost 3 women who got married at 18, or 2 women married at 17.
This is an excellent thing to remember when discussing economic statistics. The least a person can make is zero dollars, but most of the time people who are NOT WORKING aren’t counted in wage statistics.
So when people talk about average wages, they are almost always skewed upward, because a few people who make lots of money make up for hundreds who make little money.
For example, if the average salary is $50,000, and you include one CEO who made $100,000,000, how many people with ZERO income do you need to get $50,000 average? You take the distance from the high number to the average, and divide it by the distance from the low number to the average: 99,950,000/50,000 = 1999 people making nothing. Or, 20,000 making $10,000 a year.
I again do not get into the details of the religious discussion. Based on what others have posted here, the FLDS at the compound was actually a much more radical sect than what the FLDS was in the past. First, I have no independent proof of that, just what I read here. Second, being less of a cult is not a defense of the cult. But if the FLDS under it’s current leader is distinguishable from the FLDS of 30 years ago, it seems logical it would be distinguishable from the LDS church of the late 1800s.
To all: I’m trying to stop posting to the FLDS threads, so if I don’t respond it’s not because I am ignoring you personally, it’s because I’m ignoring you as a group :-)
Yeah, coming into this discussion late, but it is obvious from the many first-hand testimonies of those who were forced into marriages who tried to leave with their families, only some of whom survived (the rest being killed), that what happened in 1860’s and 70’s Utah among the LDS are extremely similar to what is happening now in Texas. In fact, it was worse considering the LDS removed themselves from the US so that they could practice their unconstitutional marriages and there was no one to turn to for relief when someone did want to escape the situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.