For what it’s worth, I do not personally believe it a good idea for kids to routinely marry anyone at age 14. I do think that it should be legal, in special cases under judicial or other independent supervision. I would not choose to live polygamously (even if my wife would go along with it), but I can find no moral or public policy rationale to prevent others from doing so.*
Nor do I believe that it is acceptable to grant one government, religious or family leader the unqualified power to decide who will be the husbands and fathers of which wives and children. I cannot in the same breath deny what amounts to a ” familial death penalty” power to Barbara Walther or Angie Voss and grant it to Warren Jeffs or Chaudhry Rashid. Rashid, some readers may remember, was the Pakistani man who, on July 6, 2008, strangled his 25-year-old daughter, in Atlanta, for objecting to an arranged marriage.
If it turns out to be true that FLDS leaders have power to make and unmake FLDS families, then this element of FLDS life will have to change. That kind of power, in my view, is fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of America. It is also diametrically opposed to the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith who, I understand, the FLDS revere as a prophet.
I would appreciate clarification on this point from FLDS readers. To what extent are FLDS individuals free to decide whom they will marry? Once they are married, is it OK, in your mind, for FLDS leaders to suddenly decide — on the basis of revelation or whim or whatever — that the marriage should be terminated and the existing parent-child relationships severed?
Having raised these questions, I want to clarify my objections to the behavior of the State of Texas in the Eldorado case. They are that
1. the State wrote and apparently executed laws for the publicly-stated purpose of driving out of the State a specific religious group;
2. the State relied on nothing more than a hoax phone call (alleging a single incident of sex abuse) to rationalize the emergency removal of 400+ kids from their homes;
3. once the children were removed, the State or its agents inflicted physical, emotional, mental and reputational abuse on them and their parents; and
4. the courts of Texas have failed to remain impartial in the case and have failed to follow basic due process norms like, for example, (a) affording parents and children a real opportunity to be heard at the so-called 14-day “full adversary hearing” back on April 17 and 18, and (b) releasing the State’s evidence to child and parent attorneys in the case instead of hoarding it as the State has so far done.
I would have NO OBJECTION if, in individual cases involving single FLDS children, the State of Texas were to
- lock up legally abusive parents or “remove” at-risk kids,
- through impartial application of the law (as it existed before it was religiously distorted),
- in response to a search warrant based on bona fide probable cause,
- through due process of law followed meticulously,
IF AND ONLY IF the State applies the law just as rigorously to all ethnic, racial or religous groupings — Muslims, Catholics, blacks, latinos, and so forth.
In this case, it is hard to imagine why Texas would think it more pressing to “emergency remove” babies, young children and teenage boys (even assuming a few teenage girls were immediately at risk) from the YFZ Ranch when entire communities of black and latino youngsters across Texas fear for their lives every time they walk out the front door. Should the State of Texas remove all children from all black homes because blacks are ten times more likely than whites to get HIV?
* * *
*The administrative difficulty arguments recently advanced by TxBluesMan don’t wash. A country that can create the Internal Revenue Code can surely find a way resolve which of 50 children inherit what stuff when their father or one of his wives passes on.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
The FLDS haters sold the state of texas a bill of goods. They convinced the state of Texas that these women wanted to be liberated from polygamy. When they discovered that these women did not to be freed from polygamy, they already had a mess on their hands. Plus, I have an insight on the DNA. Apparently these people are so interrealted that DNA canot resolve family relationships with absolute confidence.
Over at the chron,Langford writes that the DNA is so muddled, that 5% of the kids don’t have a good enough match, according to her source. When you have that much intermarrying, did the DA really think DNA was going to be the answer to all the questions?
There is NO increase in safety for children in foster care; to the contrary, it is statistically an increase of risk on all fronts. I would object to any “emergency removal,” for any cause, that does not first give the opportunity to extended family to take those children into their homes. Children in foster care for any length of time are almost certain to be sexually molested, either by other foster children or by their supposed care-providers. Children living in homes with one or more unrelated adults are 50 times, yes, fifty times, more likely to die of abuse than children with two natural parents. (Per the American Academy of Pediatrics, 2005.)
Why not keep it in the family, if that is the case?
This is a comment I have submitted this morning to tx’ blog.
I did a bit more looking around the SPLC web site. They have the FLDS listed as “general hate” organization. Their records of “general hate” incidents for Texas goes back to 2003; there were no entries at all for FLDS.
There were entries about incidents for other Texas cities and for other States under the “general hate” rubric. Included were the making of hateful comments about race or religion, and the vandalization of church buildings. I suppose that if these criteria are applied rigourously, then organizations and people in Austin and Eldorado which should be considered as hate groups include Child Protective Services (for their hateful public statements about FLDS), Governor Perry (for the same), Jack Sampson (for saying the FLDS sacrifice virgins), and the Texas Rangers, for vandalizing the YFZ Ranch Church.
Sounds about right to me.
Kurt,
I of course disagree with some of your positions.
Your points were that:
the State wrote and apparently executed laws for the publicly-stated purpose of driving out of the State a specific religious group
The State wrote and executed laws of general applicability that are facially neutral, applying to both secular and religious bigamist, designed to preserve the long-standing institution of marriage between one man and one women. The statutes have been enforced predominately against secular bigamists and the State has a compelling interest in protecting the institution of marriage. (In addition, the law of the land still prohibits bigamy/polygamy in all 50 states, and SCOTUS has consistently upheld the constitutionally of such prohibitions)
the State relied on nothing more than a hoax phone call (alleging a single incident of sex abuse) to rationalize the emergency removal of 400+ kids from their homes
The State took an anonymous tip that alleged a repeated and continuous criminal offense, corroborated the information, obtained and executed a properly issued search warrant. SCOTUS is very clear that in reviewing a search warrant, one looks at the facts known at the time the warrant was issued, not at information that may be developed at a later date, and SCOTUS specifically rejects the use of 20-20 hindsight.
once the children were removed, the State or its agents inflicted physical, emotional, mental and reputational abuse on them and their parents
This is a specious argument – the State was attempting to protect the children, and took many steps past what is normal in an emergency removal situation. Normally, at the time of the first removal, all parents are separated from the children – the State made an exception in this case. Although the removal was later determined on appeal to be unwarranted, there was no finding by the court that the State was trying to abuse anyone.
the courts of Texas have failed to remain impartial in the case and have failed to follow basic due process norms like, for example, (a) affording parents and children a real opportunity to be heard at the so-called 14-day “full adversary hearing” back on April 17 and 18, and (b) releasing the State’s evidence to child and parent attorneys in the case instead of hoarding it as the State has so far done
The 14-day hearing was mishandled by the State – which is why the mandamus issued. In the civil case, discovery was requested one of the parties to be under Rule 3, which requires a Discovery Control Plan, Until this plan is issued, the judge is within her rights to suspend discovery.
Note that tx does not deny the accuracy of your first statement quoted in his response. He points out the obvious corollary to passing laws aimed at one religion: They apply to all religions upon adoption. But his comments about the bigamy statutes being intended to protect the institution of marriage by preventing plural marriages is so much hogwash. The original bigamy statutes did just that; the amendments were not needed. The amendments do not criminalize a second, bigamous marriage; they criminalize conduct which is not marriage. There is no fraud on the marriage relationship when there is no attempt to circumvent the Family Code provisions on the issuance of marriage licences. If one does not attempt to acquire a marriage license by fraud, or to hide a second marriage from the spouse of the first, there is no fraud and no damage to the institutional bias of marriage to one spouse.
Maybe I’ve missed something, but as fare as I know we still have Constitutional rights to freedom of association and to freedom of speech. If a person wants to associate in sexually intimate relationships with more than one person of the opposite sex, in addition to a lawful spouse, and refer to that person as “wife,” then the State has no interest in crminalizing that conduct. Look at it this way, if that second person were to be referred to as “pumpkin” — as in “Let me introduce Betty Sue, my pumpkin,” — would the “holding out” aspect of Rep. Hildebran’s statute be violated?
Or, assume Mr. A (a male) is lawfully married to Mrs. A (a female). If Mr. A then takes up and purports to “marry” Mr. B (a male) without a license, and refers to Mr. B as his wife, does he commit bigamy?
I thought tx was about ready to abandon the necessity of corroboration of the search warrant, but he is still flogging that particular dead horse. If you want to see what a cop should do to corroborate an anonymous call, go to GritsForBreakfast, to the post about the Collin County search of a lawyer’s office. Follow the links till you get to the affidavit for search warrant. THAT is what corroboration means. Basic stuff which Ranger Long did not do, probably because the good Ranger knew early on that he could not corroborate the accusations of the call.
Your comments about the abuse inflicted on the 465 kids is most certainly not specious. CPS apologists have admitted that the children were severely traumatized. That the SCOT did not “find” that there was abuse by the State is not only irrelevant, but also specious, as the issue was not before the Court.
I’m happy to see that tx admits the suspension of discovery was initiated by a party, in this case CPS, and was not on the Court’s own initiative. Now maybe tx can tell us why the approach to the Court to sign an order was not a prohibited ex parte approach.
Keep it up, tx. You are educating a lot of people.
They didnt collaborate anything.They never found Sarah Barlow. They removed 400+ children for there homes because a few mothers appeared underage. and this despite the fact that they were presented with birth cirtificates and driver’s liscences.
They threw women and children into cocentration camp like conditions at Fort Concho, where most of the chlldren became sick. They forcibly seperated mother and children at the San Angelo lying to little children in the process. txmanblues, according to the appellate court the children had to be returned because the state failed to prove that theywere in imminent physical danger. The state should stop trying to protect these children, they have done them enough harm.
Read D&C Sec. 132. Pay particular attention to the word “abide”
Still waiting for clarification on the FLDS views as to the power of ecclesiastical leaders to make and unmake families. This will be a central issue moving forward. If the FLDS don’t come up with a plausible explanation or denial, political support — no matter what the law says — will unravel quickly.
I don’t like the reassigning of wives (though I think you are mistaken about it being antithetical to Joseph Smith’s own teachings and practices), and I think it’s a problem that isn’t going to go away so long as the faulty underlying theology that supports it remains in place.
If you believe that a woman and children are dependent upon the virtues and spiritual excellence of the husband and father, then it follows that earthly marriage and parent child ties not only can, but must be, broken at will for the sake of the eternal security of the woman and children. I think deeply flawed theological premises result in deeply flawed practices, and that’s what we have here, in my opinion. We are free to discuss these issues and even try to persuade others of the correctness of our own view and the errors of somebody else’s. But it’s not the state’s job to regulate religious beliefs.
While I object strongly to the practice, there remains a fundamental difference between Warren Jeffs claiming this power, and the state claiming this power. However hard it might be, if you are FLDS and you disagree with the practice, you can walk away. You can say no, and leave the fold with your family intact, and there isn’t much Warren can do about it.
The state can throw you in jail, prevent you from working with children, force you or your children to take psychotropic drugs, and you have no right, ever, to say, “I disagree, and I won’t do this.”
You can do that in the FLDS. It may be hard. It may mean leaving the community and religion you love, it may mean walking away from everything else you hold dear- but the FLDS cannot come after you with all the might and power of the State and force you.
Cheese –
OK, so I’ve read 132. Do you or do you not effectively give unilateral family make and break power to the FLDS prophet?
K
Kurt- my earlier reply is in moderation.
Doran,
Do a lege history search.
The only part of PC 25.01 that was changed in 2004 were the penalties and defenses – the basic statute (i.e., the elements of the offense) has remained the same since 1973 (which was a non-substantive change, made when the Penal Code was created from the 5-volume VTPCA).
The 1973 Bigamy statute reads as follows:
(a) An individual commits an offense if:
(1) he is legally married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor’s prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married; or
(2) he knows that a married person other than his spouse is married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry that person
in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the person’s prior marriage,
constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with that person in this state under the appearance of being married.
In other words, the behavior that you speak of being criminalized was already an offense.
The only changes were an added defense to prosecution, and an enhanced punishment if the second spouse was underage or related.
So if Bigamy was already illegal prior to the amendment, how is that a change? Nothing new was criminalized – it was already a crime.
PS, you need to check case law on what is corroboration…
DH –
Thanks for the links, but most of them are no more credible on the subject of Joseph Smith than Flora Jessop is on the FLDS.
My point was that free agency and the atonement of Christ are the two pillars of Mormon doctrine, as taught by Joseph Smith.
And what I’m sensing from different sources — some who are on the outside but still very friendly toward the FLDS — is that little children, far too young to have any agency in the matter, have been deprived of relationships with their fathers when, on a whim, Warren Jeffs or others at the top have decided that the fathers are a lost cause.
This is something Joseph Smith never would have done, at least not based on the histories that I believe are most accurate.
It is one thing to say “the women can choose to leave or not”. It’s another thing entirely to say, “The little children will leave their fathers, too, even though they have no choice. That approach is not a Smithian approach. But is it the approach of the FLDS?
KS
Kurt, we’re going to disagree with what JS would have done or not done, so I’ll leave it (i knew those links wouldn’t please, but I didn’t have time to do a longer search).
But…. little children never have a choice. When the mother in a family abandons them, they don’t choose it; when she takes them and leaves in the middle of the night they don’t have a choice, when Warren Jeffs says go and the father goes, they don’t have a choice, and when the state says go, and the father leaves, the children have no choice.
The difference to me remains the difference between the actions of a government institution with all the might and power and force of the state behind it, and the actions of a religious group, where the members do have choices and can walk away.
If it is the apprach of the FLDS to tell families to split up, that’s one more reason I am not FLDS, and it may well be one more reason they are not popular, and it may be one more reason why they are not admirable- I have never claimed they held moral high ground on every issue.
But there remains a huge difference between the leader of their church telling them to split up the family and the state splitting it up without proper legal processes.
The leadership of the FLDS have accused of misconduct in the reasignment of families. So many accusations have proven questionable. This accusation may prove questionable.
tx is correct on the legislative history. Go to the head of the class on that point.
But, I think there is still some constitutional issues with criminalizing conduct when one uses the word “wife” which could not, or might not be criminal if one uses the word “pumpkin.”
His logic gives me a headache. I can’t read his blogs anymore, and it detracts from the main point, and reduces the effectiveness of your article. To make it more enjoyable for your readers, ban him from your blog.
It is important in this discussion to establish that a “prophet” or leader of the FLDS has or has not the authority to expel a husband or a wife in such a manner as to break up a family.
Is is equally or even more important to determine if that authority has been abused by exercising it in a frivolous, capricious manner.
This post stirred some deep thoughts I see!
Right or wrong, the power to tell others that abide by the directives is one that would never be used perfectly in the eyes of everyone watching.
It seems like the courts decided it was quite a strong tool of power, one he may have used in such a manner that it made him a criminal!
PS: I saved that Old bigamy law after Doran assured us TBM wasn’t leaving or adding parts to it!!
“If the FLDS don’t come up with a plausible explanation or denial, political support — no matter what the law says — will unravel quickly.”
When did the FLDS ever have any political support to begin with? Or is that what the one-sided senate hearing was all about?
The Savior refused to give a “plausible explanation or denial” of His position when they demanded it of Him. He knew He was right and innocent. All He had to offer them was the simple, sacred truth, but they didn’t want the truth. They wanted signs like “plausible explanations” or “denial”. But they didn’t get it. He answered His accusers nothing. The result? They proclaimed Him guilty and crucified Him as an imposter and a false prophet.
From the time of Herod’s hellish edict to the time of His death, our Savior never had the first glimmer of political support. But if He had, it would certainly have unraveled just as quickly as they raveled His crown of thorns in Pilate’s court.
Kurt, it is one thing to prove contraries in order to manifest truth; it is another thing to be able to feel the truth and stand by it no matter what the s0-called “proof” of contraries may be.
May the Lord bless you to continue to see and feel the truth for what it is.
kbp,
Just a note on that – it was just subsection (a) that I quoted, there was more, but nothing relating to to discussion.
One reader asked that I ban TBM from the blog. I wouldn’t dream of it. Abraham Lincoln invited political opponents to serve in his cabinet not because he agreed with them but because, in part, they helped him refine his thinking.
That’s what “contraries” is all about. That’s why we have an adversarial legal process — it creates a forum in which facts and philosophies compete. To appreciate the good apples, you have to keep a few bad ones around. Right, TBM?
DH –
It’s not that I’m not “pleased” with the anti-Mormon websites you posted. It’s that they’re no more factually reliable than Rozita Swinton’s phone call. If you can find a single documented instance in which Joseph Smith deliberately severed a little child from his father or mother, please share it. I think you’ll be searching for a long, long time.
And while I will defend your right to express your opinion about whether Joseph Smith preached a “flawed theology,” I won’t stand by while anyone markets such opinions as settled fact. I don’t think it would help this cause for us to get into a debate over which church preaches real Christianity.
The anti-Mormon stuff on the web is precisely the kind of irresponsible, uncharitable nonsense that led to the catastrophe in Eldorado. My intent in this post was to give the FLDS an opportunity to explain themselves, not to sensationalize.
I continue to believe there is, in the mind of a child, no difference between being torn from your father by a judge or a prophet. I’d like to learn that I currently misunderstand the FLDS view on this issue.
KS
Good for you, Kurt. The truth is somewhere. Keep on keeping on! I appreciate the work you’re doing to ferret it out.
Kurt, if you’re really interested, you can check the sources for yourself. Each of the claims on the webpages I mentioned is sourced- the first of them in the Journal of Discourses which is online as an etext (I read the entire collection, yes, every volume, when I was 18, in hard copy). You don’t have to take anybody else’s word for it. You can look up the original source documents. We’re going to disagree on this, but I’ll drop it.
I agree that there is also no difference, in the mind of a child, between being torn from his family by a judge or by a prophet. However, my understanding (which could be wrong) is that even when this happens in the FLDS, the children stay with one parent and the siblings. Judge Walthers severed bonds between siblings and both parents and without even seeing evidence against the vast majority of the families (she didn’t even have all their names, and I don’t think many AALs had even met their clients).
But this is equally true when a one parent, from any part of our society, picks up the kids and runs, or when a father abandons his children. My husband’s mother left when he was still in diapers. His father couldn’t be bothered to be a father and dropped the kids off at Grandma’s a year later. My husband saw him, at best, once a year or so- sometimes by accident (they’d pass in the street) This was the parents’ choice, and no, my husband didn’t feel that separation and abandonment any differently than he would have it had been court orderded.
I expect few children would experience the situation any differently whether his family is severed by one or both parents, a judge, or a prophet. I suspect that the child does suffer less trauma in any case where he remains with his siblings and at least one parent, or a kinship foster situation, and I believe the research would support me on that. And that is also not what Judge Walthers did.
The point remains, there is a difference between these things in regard to the threat it imposes on our entire society and legal structure. What a vindictive parent or a possibly disturbed prophet does is of concern to those immediately effected, and compassionate onlookers may get involved (I still believe the best cure for this in the case of the prophet is better theology)- but it does not set a precedent that could make every citizen in the country vulnerable to the same over-reaching authority coming from our own government.
I am not justifying or excusing the breaking up of a family whether by prophet’s order, an irresponsible or vindictive parent, or a judge who doesn’t bother with due process. They are all equally disturbing to the individual families involved- I am saying that the third poses the largest threat to all of us, and that’s why I do not agree that it’s hypocritical to focus on the actions of the Court in removing 450 children without hearing any evidence about each of those children or their families.
To an extend we are reassignment all the time in this country without the kids input. My parents got divorced when I was 2, Mom decided Dad was Satan and basically told us such. Great growing up thinking you are the spawn of Satan. Mom got Boyfriend #1 who lived with us for 3 years and we had to treat him like a dad. Mom decided he was an a-hole and kicked him out. Boyfriend #2 moved in, he was a jerk to me and my brothers. I hated him, I didn’t have a say in him moving in. Mom put up with his abuse on her and us for years before she kicked him out. When I was 8, Mom met Dad#2, finally married him and he became my Dad. She made us take his last name even though it wasn’t legal. My biodad was Satan and how dare we want his last name. So in 8 short years of life, I had 4 reassigned dads and two last names. I just went along for the ride. I thought that is just what happens. My mom and brothers were the constant, so growing up I thought it was normal. Not that it’s right, but I didn’t see it was odd. Looking back now as a mother and wife, I do see how it affected me, but as a child I didn’t. I think it would have been different if my mom wasn’t always there.
DH –
I absolutely agree that we should focus on the illegal behavior of the judge. It is a threat to all of us. Never meant to suggest otherwise. But from a purely political standpoint, it’s harder to get people energized over a removal case in which — no matter what we on the outside do — we perceive that families are going to be arbitrarily shattered anyway.
And as to the “evidence” in Journal of Discourses — you can’t drop it by referring to it again as authoritative — it is widely recognized that the “JD” contains significant inaccuracies. Nothing in the JD is even close to as reliable as today’s run of the mill sworn affidavit. And since we are in the business of trashing affidavits — in one direction or another — we can’t very well use the JD as “evidence” of any particular act by anyone. And despite all of this, the JD does not, as far as I know report a single instance of Joseph Smith ripping apart a family or even suggesting the idea in the presence of little children.
K
But from a purely political standpoint, it’s harder to get people energized over a removal case in which — no matter what we on the outside do — we perceive that families are going to be arbitrarily shattered anyway.
I haven’t seen any evidence that all of these families were going to be arbitrarily shattered anyway. Some might, but others won’t- and, again, the adults involved still have some choices, unlike the state action. My point there is, again, that there’s nothing hypocritical about decrying the state action of the judge in this case against a group that may also separate families.
It’s always harder to garner support against unfair or illegal police action against an unpopular group. But I personally think that’s exactly when it’s most important.
Nothing in the JD is even close to as reliable as today’s run of the mill sworn affidavit.
The same is true of any religious book, from the standpoint of an unbeliever. And it’s true that it’s current LDS teaching that the JofD is unreliable, but this has not always been LDS teaching.
Regarding the authority of the Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young said that his sermons in them were all doctrine, and this is in the preface of the very first one: “…these Sermons will prove a source of light, information, and joy. And, according to the vocation which belongs to the Eternal Priesthood, all authorized ministers of God will hail their publication with gladness, for such an embodiment of doctrine will greatly accelerate the grand object they have in view-the salvation of souls the instruction of Saints, and the building up of Zion in the last days.”
Brigham Young himself proclaimed that his sermons reprinted in the Journal of Discourses were scripture and that all Mormons should study them as such (”I have never yet preached a sermon and sent It out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.” (Journal of Discources, vol. 13, p. 95).
The Journal of Discourses was actually still officially recommended for study and doctrine as recently as 1963-
the offical church prefaces to every volume proclaim their value for authoritative teaching-
In the preface to volume 11, published by Brigham Young, Junior, BY, Jun says, “EACH successive year the power of God is manifestly increasing upon His people, and more especially upon His ministers in the Holy Priesthood, whose duty it is to build up and instruct the Church in His most holy will.
The “Journal of Discourses” is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people, but especially to the Saints. It follows, then, then, that each successive volume is more and more valuable as the Church increases in numbers and importance in the earth, and its doctrines become more abundantly developed and are brought into practical exercise by His peculiar people. Every step of its advancement is fraught with the greatest possible importance to the human family.”
From the beginning, the Journal of Discourses was printed in the LDS church printing press, and the very first issue contained this note from the trained transcriber who published it:
“It affords me great pleasure in being able to put in your possession the words of the Apostles and Prophets, as they were spoken in assemblies of the Saints in Zion, the value of which cannot be estimated by man, not so much for any great display of worldly learning and eloquence, as for the purity of doctrine, simplicity of style, and extensive amount of theological truth which they develop.”
For years Latter-day Saints were encouraged to purchase a set to enhance their understanding of Mormon truth claims.
In March 1963, the church-owned Deseret Book placed an ad in the Salt Lake Tribune with a banner that read “The Voices of Prophets!” offering a set of the JoD and telling LDS members that they “should take this opportunity of owning the written words of remarkable teachings from the LDS pulpit. To the clear and vigorous exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration.”
Also in 1963, Axel Andresen, the assistant manager of church owned Deseret Book, answered a question somebody had asked him about the books: Andresen wrote, “In having in your library the 26 volumes of the ‘Journals of Discourses’ (sic), you have a library containing the sermons of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church. If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about.” He went on to point out that the volumes were published by the LDS church, and said that certainly the church would be publishing them if it didn’t agree with them.
This is the preface to volume 2- and this preface was written by Franklin Richards: “The Second Volume of the Journal of Discourses needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth. It is made up of the choicest fruit that can be called from the tree of knowledge, suited to the tastes of all who can appreciate such delicious food.”
Every preface to each of the JofD volumes is written by a leader in the Mormon church, and every preface sets the books forward as true reflections of church teaching.
Brigham Young, in particular, examined the transcripts of his sermons and approved them before they were published in the Journal of Discourses.
Brigham Young – “I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of nations — that Brigham Young has said ‘when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.’ I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264 (1870)
Brigham Young – “I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom … I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men , that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95 (1870)
The Journal of Discourses is the primary source for Apostle John Widtsoe’s Discourses of Brigham Young (1925), which was itself a primary source of material for the 1997 priesthood manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young .
The proof of the truth or untruth of those sources is not whether or not you can find them repeated at so called ‘anti-Mormon’ websites. It’s whether or not these were things actually said by Mormon prophets and apostles. I don’t dismiss most of the anti FLDS claims because they are anti FLDS. I dismiss them because they’ve been shown to be false, grossly misleading, misrepresentative, exaggerated, or otherwise unreliable.
I have not seen any evidence that the sermons recorded by as many as a dozen different people, most of whom had day jobs as court reporters, or news reporters, were considered inaccurate and unreliable by the people who actually gave those sermons, or by anybody else actually alive at the time. All I can find is that at some point some hundred years after the fact, the offical LDS line began to dismiss those transcribed sermons as ‘inaccurate.’
One of the other instances listed in one of the links I gave was to Joseph Smith’s request for Heber Kimball’s wife Vilate. The Mormon organization acknowledges that this happened. Heber submitted to Joseph’s request, and Joseph did not accept- it was a test of Heber’s faith.
The quote from Jedidiah Grant is also supported by FAIR (“What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph asked him for his money? [he would give it all willingly] Or if he came and said, “I want your wife?” “O yes,” he would say, “here she is, there are plenty more” . . . Did the Prophet Joseph want every man’s wife he asked for? He did not . . . the grand object in view was to try the people of God, to see what was in them. If such a man of God should come to me and say, “I want your gold and silver, or your wives,” I should say, “Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I have got.”)
In fact, that pro LDS article from FAIR supports the i4m claims in surprising detail. A couple of instances and some of the details are not mentioned in the FAIR article, but nothing in the FAIR, pro-Mormon article refutes anything in the i4m article. Pretty much the same list of women married to other men whom Joseph asked to marry him is on both sites.
FAIR enough.
Without admitting or denying the doctrinal bonafides of the JoD . . .
even the Vilate Kimball incident — which is also included in Heber C’s biography — did not lead to the break up of a family. It put some real stress on Heber C. and Vilate. But it did not terrorize or traumatize the kids, as far as is recorded. Agree?
Agreed.
Anyone in a religion has the right to go to their bishop,pastor,preacher,stake president,presiding elder,or anyone they choose when they have a problem.
So a man or woman goes to their spirital leader over a personal issue between them & they are heard.The man or woman who is the prepatrator is sent on their way and the victim is taken and taken care of.The spiritual leader sees fit to not brodcast the man or womans fault to the world,but to let them deal with it.Men & women have been seperated and asked to not associate with certain people,or family members.
Many times a religious leader can prevent a problem or a nasty court battle by helping people deal with their problems.
In the FLDS religion men & women have been advised to seperate.Wether they do or not is up to them.”AT THE WHIM OF A PROPHET’simply isint true.Some men and women stay together,some dont,some men get upset that their wife wasent happy with them,so blame the person she turned to for help and support.Some women get upset that their husband isint happy with himself so leaves them.
Many mariage issues are resolved and the man & woman get back together.
Many are not and a man or woman moves on and is married again to someone else.
K.My point here is,people have issues. find me a person who doesnt and you will have a perfect person,who has over come every obsticle life has to offer.Men & women know when something isint right.They know when an issue needs approched.Just becaus they choose to go to their religious leader over the state is NOT ANY,EVER,A REASON TO ASSUME THAT SOMEONE HAS AN ALL POWERFUL WHIM.
Scripture or not.People know what makes them happy,& have a tendancy to go after that.
Funny, I didn’t even know this discussion was going on. It is like someone talking about me behind my back.
Kurt Don’t read this:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html