Talk:Mormon fundamentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents

[edit] United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ

According to the ULDC official website, Owen Spencer Smith was confirmed by a member of the Council of Fifty (most likely his grandfather) instituted by Joseph Smith Jr. The group was founded as the Smith clan or Smithites about the time of Winter Quarters in Nebraska. It became known as the "United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ" most recently under Heber Gerald Smith's leadership. Heber just passed away between August 5th and 6th in the night. -Sthatting 06:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentalist Mormon Groups

There should be a list with more information about different Mormon Fundamentalist groups on Wikipedia. I know that MF.org is a good resource, but I've also done some researching on the subject and there appears to be a larger church growing (though I am unsure how big because it is in Utah and I'm in California.) called the United Latter-day Church of Jesus Christ that is a spin-off of the FLDS Church. I suppose you can do what you want with the info, unless you folks already know. -71.102.141.168 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does LDS church disassociate itself from fundamentalism?

Does anyone have a reference for the reason in:

For doctrinal and image reasons, the LDS Church works hard to disassociate itself from Mormon fundamentalism

If not, may I remove "For doctrinal and image reasons"? Nereocystis 17:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of a specific reference for this. It's one of those things that everybody in the church knows, but nobody has bothered to talk about it officially. I don't think it's necessary to include that characterization in the article, though, so you can probably delete it. I think it's probably pretty obvious, anyway, why the church wants to disassociate itself from fundamentalist groups. COGDEN 00:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
However, the article read that the sole reason for the LDS church distancing itself from the group was "image reasons" - which is incorrect.
In fact, when asked about "Mormon Fundamentalism, President Hinckley stated the following doctrinal reasons for distancing itself from polygamy and fundamentalism:
I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.
If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.
There is no such thing as a "Mormon Fundamentalist." It is a contradiction to use the two words together.
More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage. [1]
That is "doctrinal" as it deals with revelation - not an image seperation. Apostates from an organisation are seperated by doctrine, not image. If you are going to remove the word "doctrine," remove the word "image." -Visorstuff 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The citations for the doctrinal argument is stronger than the image argument. In the 1890s, there was probably an image argument. I'm glad you added the section the word doctrinal. How about this, letting the reader follow the links if s/he cares, and adding the link:

The LDS Church works hard to disassociate itself from Mormon fundamentalism, and will excommunicate any of its members who practice plural marriage. [2]

Nereocystis 17:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's another reference for "doctrinal" [3]. In any case, we can remove both, if you want, but the reasoning would be doctrinal. The church seldom caters to image issues reactively, but proactivly. -Visorstuff 18:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I think both should be deleted, but just as an aside, I think there is a strong image issue, as well. For many people not very familiar with the church, their first thought when they think of Mormons is polygamy, and that fact clearly hurts missionary work. I think this is pretty obviously a factor in why the church tries to distance itself from polygamists who call themselves Mormons, but I don't know of any authoritative church statement that says this explicitly.

I agree with COGDEN about deleting both. The statements against those practicing the United Order, or other early Mormon teachings, are not as strong as those against polygamy, suggesting that image is an issue. Deleting both image and doctrine seems like the best solution. Nereocystis 20:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed. -Visorstuff 21:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Mormon Fundamentalism & Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalists

I am in favour of merging the articles. It seems pointless and sloppy to have them separated. However I do think it would be wise to add the "Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalists" section as a subtopic of the article itself.

do not merge the articles. some people probably come to wiki searching for the difference between what they have heard called "mormon fundamentalism" and "mormon." different articles is the best way to clarify this.

I'm in favor if -

  • Its first made clear that Mormon Fundamentalism includes a variety of beliefs, and that the majority of those under that term are not polygamous. (unsigned by User:Tobeyjaggle)
I need more reasoning behind why this is needed. To me, the article titles are wrong (I think we should go back to Polygamous clans of Utah) but definitely seem like seperate topics to me. Not aly Mormon polygamous groups are fundamentalists, and not all fundamentalists are polygamous. There is not enough overlap in my mind. I may be persuaded, however. More discussion is needed. -Visorstuff 23:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be good to merge them. Not all fundamentalists are polygamous, but don't 99% of them believe polygamy is ordained by God? I say go for it.--Gillespee 20:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
"Polygamous clans of Utah" isn't a good name because:
  1. Not all polygamous Mormon groups are in Utah.
  2. Not all polygamous groups should be described as clans.
Polygamous Mormons are somewhat fundamentalist by definition, since practicing or believing in plural marriage is a return to one belief which is considered fundamental by those who believe in it.
Perhaps this title "Polygamous Mormons" would be better. "Post-Manifesto polygamous Mormons" or "Modern polygamous Mormons". I don't like that last name, because the definition of modern is subject to change over time. Nereocystis 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree — it covers the topic at hand with as few words as possible. Deadsalmon 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Polygamous Mormons" is an inappropriate title, as the people themselves do NOT refer to themselves in this way. They refer to themselves as "Fundamentalist Mormons" or "Mormon Fundamentalists". The fact that at least half of all Fundamentalist Mormons are not currently practicing polygamy, in my opinion, further supports the use of "Fundamentalist Mormon" as the title. I am not aware of any "Fundamentalist Mormons" who do NOT espouse polygamy as part of their belief system. However, it would be inaccurate to refer to all Fundamentalists as polygamists, since they are not all actually practicing polygamy, and many may never practice it. I myself am an Independent Fundamentalist Mormon, but I am not currently a polygamist. It would be inaccurate of me to refer to myself as a polygamist, even though I support the practice as part of my belief system.

To clarify some confusion: Not all "polygamists" are Fundamentalist Mormons. There are those who are Christian, Muslim, etc. Not all Fundamentalist Mormons are polygamists. Not all Fundamentalist Mormons are affiliated with "polygamous" groups; some are Independents and affiliate with NO ecclesiastical organization at all, but may associate socially with other Independents. If the Wikipedia is going to be accurate, it needs to be SPECIFIC. 67.172.251.100 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Mary at Principle Voices, www.principlevoices.org

I refer to myself as a "Mormon Fundamentalist" and do not understand that Gordon B. Hinkley has any right to say that there is no such thing... I am not calling myself a "Mormon" (Fundamentalist Mormon) therefore I am not infringing on his membership status criteria. I am just stating that I am a Fundamentalist who believes in the fundamentals of Mormonism. I am also a "Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalist" because I believe and abide the patriachal law of Abraham given to him by God. A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist of whatever he believes in as long as it is congruent with the original (or fundamental) doctrines of the organizer of those beliefs, i.e. God (plural marriage), Joseph Smith (mormonism), etc. Maybe there are some "Polygamous Fundamentalists" out there that do not want to be connected with Mormonism in anyway or with a "Group" of polygamists, but I understand these pages to be about those who believe in polyganous relations because of what was origianlly taught by Joseph Smith, the organizer of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, I say merge it all together and give a few short expanations.

[edit] History of Polygamous fundamentalists

Thought this recap of how most of the major mormon fundamentalist polygamous groups trace their authority would be useful at a later date [4]. -Visorstuff 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Why has Mormon Fundamentalist not been merged with this article? Bytebear 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why has Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist not been merged with this article? Bytebear 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good find. They should be merged. --66.233.54.205 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I merged Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist into this page. Original page can be found here Talk:Mormon fundamentalism/merged article Old talk page can be found here Talk:Mormon fundamentalism/merged article talk page or here Talk:Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist. Kewp (t) 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've merged histories... See also Talk:Polygamous Mormon fundamentalist. Cool Hand Luke 07:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protest Image

Is that image a pro-mormon protest or an anti-mormon protest? I know of some people from suych famlies abandoning the mormon religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.132.2 (talk • contribs)

[edit] LDS excommunication for beliefs vs. practices

One editor has stated in an edit summary: "The LDS General Handbook of Instructions could be interpreted to allow for excommunication for personal beliefs where such beliefs are considered to be the 'teachings of apostate sects'."

I don't know what your reference is for that statement, but the latest (2006) Handbook of Instructions would not allow for excommunication based on beliefs alone. For excommunication to proceed on the basis of "apostasy", there must be some action or practice of the LDS member apart from mere beliefs. Examples are repeated teaching of "apostate doctrine", joining another church, affiliating or following the teachings of Mormon fundamentalists, etc. All these things are "actions."

The Handbook says that apostasy occurs when a member "repeatedly act[s] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church.[1]

I would love to hear of how to justify an excommuncation for beliefs alone based on these criteria. –SESmith 04:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1998 edition of the General Handbook of Instructions consulted says that a disciplinary council may be called (and excommunication follow) in the case of apostasy where a member is found to "Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or higher authority." It makes no distinction between mentally following or putting such beliefs into action, or between privately held and publicly preached beliefs.
The issue is not whether the LDS Church officially states that excommunication is justified for personal and private belief (without public opposition, or claiming the Church accepts such beliefs), but whether Mormon Fundamentalists have been excommunicated for such beliefs by their Bishops and Stake Presidents. There are many Mormon Fundamentalists (as well as others with strong personal beliefs that differ from the LDS Church) who claim they were excommunicated solely for their personal and private beliefs.
One orthodox LDS author who writes on Mormon Fundamentalist topics, Brian C. Hales, admits that such excommunications take place, although he regrets their personal selectiveness in their beliefs - see http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/Adam-God6.html (Reaction #6)
--Tobey 06:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That same quote is included as you quoted it in the 2006 version unchanged. I interpret "follow" to mean, as one dictionary definition says, "to conform to, comply with, or act in accordance with; obey". To me anyways, this implies that the person is actively doing something beyond believing these things in his own head. He could be (1) teachings them to others or (2) putting beliefs into actions, by, for example, engaging in plural marriage. If there are not actions demonstrating a following, I am seriously skeptical that excommunication would ever take place.

The persons excommunicated over Adam–God were—I speculate—actively engaged in teaching it to others. The same author you quote says, "To find members who are so selective in their beliefs and so adamant and impatient in their declarations, that they are excommunicated is very unfortunate." This mention of the member being so "adamant" in their beliefs and "impatient in their declaration" reveals that these people were either teaching others or announcing their views in public, which are actions. It's semantics, I know, but the distinction is important. No one is excommunicated for beliefs unless they are manifested in some sort of practice or teaching. –SESmith 08:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ LDS Church (2006). Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. Salt Lake City: LDS Church, p. 110.

[edit] The LDS church IS NOT affiliated with mormon fundamentalism

The LDS church strives to separate itself from polygamy and the Mormon fundamentalist groups. This site portrays that the LDS church and the Mormon fundamentalist groups are related. I've tried to fix that but someone keeps changing it, please do your research and stop relating the LDS church and the Mormon fundamentalist groups.

I see nothing in the article that indicates that the modern LDS Church is affiliated with Mormon Fundamentalism. They share a common history and many common beliefs, and in that way are 'philosophically' related, but explanations of their differences take up a major part of this article, and it is hard to imagine someone equating the two movements after reading this article. --Tobey (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the very first sentences says "Mormon fundamentalism is distinct from Mormonism as it is practiced today by the LDS Church." How can this be misunderstood? Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. "Mormon fundamentalism is distinct from Mormonism as it is practiced today by the LDS Church." and IS practiced today by the LDS church" Mormon fundamentalism IS NOT practiced today by the LDS church, it is practiced by the FLDS and other "spin offs" of the LDS church. But it is NOT practiced by the LDS church today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhin2010 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It says Mormonism is practiced by the LDS Church, not Mormon fundamentalism. Both groups practice a form of Mormonism, and the sentence is pointing out they are distinct forms. You've managed to misread it, which before I didn't think it could be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Well I guess the sentence should be phrased different. Because it says Mormon Fundamentalism is distinct from Mormonism and it is practiced by the LDS church. it sounds like Mormon Fundamentalism, not Mormonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhin2010 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The "it" refers to the last noun that preceded it, which is "Mormonism". However, an editor has made the change I believe which does clarify it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever revised that sentence. It clears up confusion. Thanks again