Polygamy Numbers

Ben Park shared this critique of the popular misconception that only 3% of Mormons practiced polygamy:

[In early August], FAIR went live with their Mormon Defense League website.[1] Among the “false claims” the website seeks to debunk concern the LDS Church’s current relationship to polygamy. In an effort to distinguish the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from polygamous groups in the western United States, the MDL emphasized that plural marriage was a limited practice that had been officially stopped over a century ago. (Including perpetuating the unfortunate rhetorical battle over the label “Mormon”–a battle of deep irony when considering our frustration of others refusing us the label “Christian.”) To answer the question of the number of Mormons who practiced polygamy, it replied that “modern estimates of LDS members practicing polygamy prior to 1904 range between 2% and 20%.” While the website does admit that it is tough to get an accurate number, and that it depends on who you count within the statistics, their final number (2% to 20%) is unfortunate in that it is not only false but misleading.

The MDL shouldn’t be blamed as the first organization to present this number. The 2% figure, which has been perpetuated for over a century through many sources, probably originated with the Utah Commission in the mid 1880s, which in turn was probably received from the LDS Church itself in hopes to downplay the practice of polygamy in the era of federal prosecution. It was then echoed in the Reed Smoot Trials from 1904-1907 as the Church sought to distance itself from its polygamist past. The figure appeared in many public venues–most notably LDS-owned newspapers–in the 1930s as LDS Leaders worked to put distance between themselves and the growing fundamentalist organizations. It still crops up today, most notably in President Hinckley’s interview with Larry King where it was presented that “between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in [polygamy].”[2] If only 2% of Mormons practiced polygamy, this reasoning tends to argue, then it wasn’t nearly as bit a role within the Church as detractors would like to claim.[3]

The biggest problem with this number is that it is demonstrably wrong. Demographical work done by Kathryn Daynes and others that shows that the number of Mormon individuals living in polygamous households was closer to 20 to 30%, with variations over time and region.[4] One would have to take some seriously narrow parameters to get anything close to 2%, and some very optimistic framing to have a top number of 20%. Granted, there were decades and areas that had lower percentages, but there were plenty of times and periods that made up for it.

We Are A Warlike People

President Kimball’s Sobering Assessment Illuminated by the Case of the Mormons in the Third Reich.

By Alan Keele, Professor Emeritus of German Studies, Brigham Young University

I begin with some words of President Spencer W. Kimball from the Ensign of June, 1976. His article commemorated the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and is entitled: “The False Gods We Worship.” President Kimball wrote:

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel … and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”(Matthew 5:44-45) … What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? … Our assignment is affirmative: … to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.

President Kimball had similar things to say in the First Presidency Statement on the Basing of the MX missile five years later, in 1981, as well as in his Christmas and Easter Messages around that same time. (The remarkable revelation on the Priesthood in June of 1978 fell directly between these pronouncements.)

President Kimball’s inspired words of 1976, 1978, and 1981 were unprecedented and courageous. Anyone alive at that time will remember clearly how much fear and hatred had been generated by the Cold War and the policy called Mutually Assured Destruction, appropriately abbreviated MAD. I recall people I otherwise considered sane seriously advocating a preemptive nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union.

On Earth to Learn to Play “Simon Says”?

Lynette shares her views on obedience:

I’ve never quite understood the idea that we’re primarily here on earth to learn obedience. It’s the kind of thing that you’d think we could have practiced to boring but pristine perfection in the pre-mortal life. Ahh, you say, but the difference is that here we have to learn to obey even when God isn’t explicitly around. So now you get the added twist of having to figure out what’s really coming from God. This, I have to say, sounds disturbingly like a game of “Simon Says.” Your primary aim is to learn the skill of figuring out which commands are coming from Simon, and then to obey them as quickly as possible. And even more troubling, Simon’s voice is often unclear, but you risk eternal consequences if you get it wrong.

And what does this create? A lot of people who are good at playing Simon Says (though of course they can’t stop arguing about what really came from Simon and calling to repentance those whom they think are playing the game incorrectly). But while Nute Gunray and the Trade Federation might want to build droid armies, in the context of LDS teachings, I can’t say I really understand why God would want one.

So what’s up with this idea that obedience is the first law of heaven? In the New Testament, Jesus says that the first great commandment is to love God with all your heart, might, mind, and strength. And while some might interpret that as simply a fluffier way of saying, “obey God,” that doesn’t work for me. In fact, I would say that conflating love and obedience is a dangerous move–at the very least, it’s certainly not something we would advocate in any mortal relationship. Someone who proclaims, “if you love me, you’ll do what I say,” should probably raise our suspicions.

Driving the Pharisaism Out of Our Souls

A timely topic from Wallace Goddard

The Pharisees were already irritated with Jesus; He and His disciples had gathered grain to eat on the Sabbath. As if His disregard for the rules of righteousness were not offensive enough, for good measure He claimed that He was Lord of the Sabbath! Jesus sure knew how to rile up the Pharisees.

They followed Him to the synagogue and set the trap. They pushed a man with a withered hand before Him and asked “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days?” (Matthew 12:10).

The Pharisees knew that Jesus had often healed on the Sabbath. If He suggested that His actions were acceptable, He would be in clear violation of the Jewish law. If He suggested that healing was not acceptable on the Sabbath, He would be condemning Himself and His previous actions. The Pharisees had Him in their trap.

Jesus, in His masterful way, invited an understanding of law: “What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.”

Now the Pharisees were in the trap. They would rescue a sheep but not a child of God on the Sabbath? What kind of shepherds were they?

Jesus turned to the man whom the Pharisees had turned into an uncomfortable object lesson. Jesus saw a struggling and stunted human. He reached for him—as He does for all of us: “Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other” (Matthew 12:13). What a healer!

Is Preemptive War A Christian Principle?

By Hugh Nibley

There is no possibility of confrontation here between Good and Bad. This is best shown in Alma’s duel with Amlici. The Amlicites are described as coming on in all the hideous and hellish trappings of one of our more colorful rock groups, glorying in the fiendish horror of their appearance (see Alma 3: 4-6). Alma on the other hand is the “man of God” (Alma 2: 30) who meets the monster Amlici “with the sword, face to face” (Alma 2: 29), and of course wins.

Yet the Nephites consider that debacle to be “the judgments of God sent upon them because of their wickedness and their abominations; therefore they were awakened to a remembrance of their duty” (Alma 4: 3). The moral is that whenever there is a battle both sides are guilty.

Nobody knows that better than Captain Moroni, whose efforts to avoid conflict far exceed his labors in battle. When he sees trouble ahead, he gets ready for it by “preparing the minds of the people to be faithful unto the Lord their God” (Alma 48: 7). His military preparations are strictly defensive, and he is careful to do nothing that will seem to threaten the Lamanites; all of his battles are fought on Nephite soil (see Alma 48: 8-10).

We are repeatedly reminded that Moroni is “a man that did not delight in bloodshed” (Alma 48: 11). By him “the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives” (Alma 48: 14).

Any thought of preemptive strike is out of the question; Moroni even apologizes for espionage, for if they only have sufficient faith God will “warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger; And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves. “This is a great load off their minds”and his [Moroni's] heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity” (Alma 48: 15-16). Resisting iniquity where? In the only place it can be resisted, in their own hearts.

Not only is a preemptive strike out of the question but Moroni’s people have to let the enemy attack at least twice before responding, to guarantee that their own action is purely defensive (see Alma 43: 46). The highest compliment that Alma can pay Moroni is “Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon” (Alma 48: 18), who, as we have seen, renounced all military solutions to the Lamanite problem.

The Meaning of Kolob

Joseph Antley, a student of history and ancient Near Eastern studies, speculates on the concepts behind Abrahamic astronomy:

I am not an Egyptologist, nor do I have any formal training in Egyptology. But I do love the Pearl of Great Price’s Book of Abraham, and I enjoy learning about ancient Egypt. With that said, although I’m confident in my conclusions on this issue, I would encourage readers to take my thoughts on this subject with a grain of salt.

Abraham 3 is such a powerful chapter, and it’s one that I worry is too quickly glossed over by most Latter-day Saints. In the chapter, the ancient patriarch sees a grand vision of the cosmos through the Urim and Thummim. From this vision comes several controversial doctrines unique to Mormonism, such as the existence and nature of “Kolob” and God’s physical presence in the universe.

It is not uncommon to hear speculation among Church members about what Kolob is and where it might be. Theories have been given that Kolob is actually the star Polaris, or the star Sirius, or a star at the galactic center. However, all of this wondering about Kolob’s place in the universe—assuming Kolob is actually a physical star—is “looking beyond the mark” (Jacob 4:14). People who have this narrow view of the contents of Abraham 3 never see the important meaning of the chapter, which has little to do with celestial bodies in the universe. We imagine it as being something more mysterious than it is, while really Abraham 3 can be very simple to understand.

Shoplifting for God?

In the 80s pop band the Smiths had a song titled “Shoplifters of the World Unite” which some interpreted as drawing attention to the fact that those who governments and corporations who commit the large crimes get away with it, whereas those who commit the petty crimes are incarcerated. One Catholic Priest by the name of Father Tim Jones raised a storm of controversy when he advised the poorer of his parishioners to shoplift if they couldn’t make ends meet, from the large supermarkets that could afford it:

People enjoy watching musicals. Sound of Music, South Pacific, Oliver, Guys and Dolls, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Oklahoma – all of them tell a story of people struggling to get something about the world the way it should be. One of the funny things about watching the musicals is the improbability of people – sometimes large groups of people: soldiers, chimney sweeps, lumberjacks – suddenly bursting into song and dance, as a constant reaction to a new circumstance or twist in the plot!

Lest anyone sneer too much at the genre of the musical, one can’t help but notice that Luke’s gospel account of the birth of Jesus Christ seems uncomfortably like the script for a musical. People – or heavenly hosts – keep bursting into song at the mention of Jesus!

These Biblical songs have become an integral part of Christian worship: the Gloria, the Nunc Dimittis, the Benedictus, and, from today’s gospel, the Magnificat – “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.”

This last Sunday of Advent, the last Sunday preparing for the coming of the Christ child, sees our focus shifting to Mary, the mother of Christ. In our reading today from Luke’s gospel, Mary, carrying the Christ child, travels for a week to visit her elderly relative Elizabeth, who, to her husband Zechariah’s amazement, is pregnant. Elizabeth recognizes Mary’s baby as the Lord, and Elizabeth’s unborn baby starts dancing inside her! The baby’s dance is almost like the introduction to Mary’s song.

The Magnificat is a remarkable song. It expresses not just her own sentiment of submission to God, but the aspiration of all Israel. It is at the heart of Christian worship and praise to this very day, because it captures the excitement and the joy that in Christ, the expectations and values of this unjust world are turned on their heads.

The recurrent theme of Mary’s song is the faithful love of God towards his children, no matter how lowly, despised or lacking they may be. The phrases of her song are drawn almost entirely from the grateful pleading of the forlorn in Old Testament prophetic literature. It is a song which has done a huge amount to reinforce the Christian commitment to the poor and needy of society in every age. Advent is the time of preparing for the birth of Christ, and in Mary’s song we are reminded every year and every evening to keep the needs of the poor as close to our hearts as can be, because the poor and forlorn are as close as can be to the heart of God.

All of that is a nice enough sentiment. But keeping the poor ‘close to our hearts’ can be a costly business. Many of us, for much of the time, shrink from this Christian calling, because to accept Mary’s call is leave our comfort zone way behind. The life of the poor is not an idyllic life of simplicity in modern Britain. It is a constant struggle, a constant battle, a constant minefield of competing opportunities, competing responsibilities, obligations and requirements, a constant effort to achieve the impossible. For many at the bottom of our social ladder, lawful, honest life can sometimes seem to be an apparent impossibility.

Wealth & Righteousness?

An anonymous author at the “Wheat and Tares” blog reports that:

Do we really believe that just because one is rich one is blessed by God? According to a study published in 2004 which researched the Mormon Wealth Attribution (MWA), we do.  The MWA can be defined as the tendency of LDS individuals to perceive those who are wealthy as more righteous or pious than their less wealthy neighbors.  The randomized empirical study reported that “Church members are more likely to attribute righteousness to a wealthy church member than to a poor one” and that (in general) wealthy members of the church are seen as being better people, both secularly and spiritually than poor people.

I have seen many LDS individuals (including priesthood leaders) apply negative attributions and stereotypes toward those who are poor or lacking resources.  They implied that these poor individuals need to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and either work harder or be more righteous.  To me, making these kinds of attributions based on wealth alone (or at all) seems to be dangerous and hurtful.

What about environmental influences? Take the example of someone who has worked diligently to obtain training in a tech position.  Then abruptly all of those tech jobs are shifted out of country.  Did that person sin?  Is s/he somehow less righteous than the wealthy person whose job was not shipped overseas?  What about the person who invested all their savings in the housing market?

Wealth does not equal righteousness. There are many wealthy people within the LDS church (more per capita than most religions). However, just because one is LDS and rich does not mean one is righteous.  I have known many wealthy LDS members who ran pyramid schemes, sold faulty merchandise, and were certainly not kind to their fellow-man.  And yet at Church they were given a level of respect and positive regard simply because they made more than six figures.  It has always struck me as odd that individuals who ruin other peoples financial stability can be perceived as somehow more righteous simply because they figured out how to make money and keep it.  Does the value of the almighty dollar outweigh other values?

Poverty does not equal unrighteousness. I have known many people who had difficulty making ends meet.  To me, these people seemed to be righteous and pious people who had deep and abiding faith in God.  And yet these people were slighted, marginalized, and given menial callings at church.  I also once had a close relative (who had experienced several financial setbacks in a row) ask me “why is it that this keeps happening to us?  We pray, we go to church, we pay our tithing, we budget, we work hard, we do everything we are supposed to, why can’t we seem to get ahead?”  Should I tell her she simply isn’t righteous enough?

Church vs Corporation – Part 4

Alan Waterman of “Pure Mormonism” blog recently posted his thoughts on “How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ“. Many Latter-day Saints might disagree with his conclusions, but the issues he brings up are interesting ones, and are worth us studying and coming to our own conclusions about.

Although some might find the commentators language to be disrespectful, the story below is an interesting insights in to how some programs and policies are created.

Rise Of The Institutional Church

In 1961 Church headquarters announced a new program that it called “Correlation.” This new way of doing things was introduced in conference by apostle Harold B. Lee. It was described as a benefit, sold as a way to coordinate and unify all the various programs of the church.

What it ended up being was a stifling means of control, not only of individual wards, but also of many individual members. The policies of correlation took decades to fully implement, and most of us didn’t even notice the subtle changes. Although it was begun during the administration of President David. O. Mckay, it has since been learned that President McKay neither implemented nor controlled the program, and on at least two occasions he expressed concerns about it privately. Still, the Correlation juggernaut continued on for the next four decades.

Correlation represented a gradual and subtle shift in the way the church came to be governed at all levels. What it resulted in was top-down control of the church and its members. Like the frog in the pot, few members really noticed what was happening to their church until it was fully cooked.

Church vs Corporation – Part 3

Alan Waterman of “Pure Mormonism” blog recently posted his thoughts on “How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ“. Many Latter-day Saints might disagree with his conclusions, but the issues he brings up are interesting ones, and are worth us studying and coming to our own conclusions about.

Although some might find the commentators language to be disrespectful, the story below is an interesting insights in to how some programs and policies are created.

The Vanishing LDS Church

Without a doubt the most startling discovery in Daymon Smith’s book is his revelation that the church that Joseph Smith established in 1830 no longer even exists. At all.

What we think of as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, says Smith, operates today as a mere trademark of the corporation that owns the name to it. The actual church that used to go by that name, and which claims Jesus Christ as its head, does not exist today in any legally recognized form.

I realize that sounds impossible for some people to grasp. Well, I’m here to help.

As it so happens, I know something about corporate law as it applies to churches, so allow me to back up a bit here and give you a quick crash course so you can understand how a government chartered corporation can own a church that no longer even exists. I promise to make it easy to understand.

Corpus Descriptum (See, it’s getting easier already!)

A corporation is an organization chartered by the state and given many legal rights separate from its owners. You with me so far? Didn’t think so.

Okay, think of Frankenstein’s monster. No, scratch that. Too evil.

Think of a robot that you and your friends control. It has no brain and no soul, but it can walk around and pick things up; it can do stuff for you. That’s a corporation. It can do stuff for you.

Except unlike a robot, a corporation has no actual form. No body. No robot hands or robot feet. So if you can visualize a robot that has no mechanical parts, you’re close to mastering the concept. A corporation is an entity. What is an entity? It’s a thing. What is a thing? It’s an entity.

Welcome to the world of law.

A corporation is an entity that you cannot touch. It is neither inherently good nor inherently evil, but it has a life of its own, and if the batteries are good, that robot can live on after you and your friends are dead and gone. Sometimes that can be a problem. Originally corporations in America were not meant to outlive their creators. Today they do.

One of the biggest problems with a corporation is that under the law, a corporation is actually considered a “person.” That’s why it is often defined as a legal fiction. That is, this “person” is legal, but he isn’t real. It’s a fictional person. It isn’t flesh and blood. It has no soul.

And that’s the rub. Although it is treated like one, a corporation is not a human being, and usually no real live person within a corporation can be legally held responsible for the harm a corporation might do. The corporation can be fined, but that fine is usually absorbed by the stockholders. The board member’s salaries remain sacrosanct.

Indeed, the directors of a corporation can, in a way, transfer their sins to the corporation, which will absorb them without much consequence. In the words of the British Baron Edward Thurlow, the problem with corporations is “they have no soul to save, nor body to incarcerate.”