Mistakes In The News About Polygamy And Mormons

[Guest lt]

Mistakes in the News

Journalists who use the Internet for research may find the following list of recent corrections and clarifications helpful.

“Mormon fundamentalists” and Polygamy

Various media outlets, 6 February 2004

Recent news reports regarding various issues related to the practice of polygamy have used terms such as "fundamentalist Mormons," "Mormon sect" and "polygamous Mormons" to refer those who practice polygamy.

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, terms such as those listed above are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamous groups in Utah, other parts of the American West and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. More information on polygamy in Church history

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by LaurelTree@Mar 15 2004, 08:49 AM

Mistakes in the News

Journalists who use the Internet for research may find the following list of recent corrections and clarifications helpful.

“Mormon fundamentalists” and Polygamy

Various media outlets, 6 February 2004

Recent news reports regarding various issues related to the practice of polygamy have used terms such as "fundamentalist Mormons," "Mormon sect" and "polygamous Mormons" to refer those who practice polygamy.

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, terms such as those listed above are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamous groups in Utah, other parts of the American West and elsewhere have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. More information on polygamy in Church history

This is confusing. The term "Mormon" is used incorrectly according to whom? The COJCOLDS is not the "Mormon" church either. Mormon is simply a nickname for anyone who espouses a belief in the Book of Mormon.

[Jason]

Laurel,

Mormon Polygamists did not come from the split after Smith's death. They came after Woodruff with his 1890 Manifesto and JFS and his 1904 second Manifesto. So the AP is wrong.

J

PS. Saying that these polygamous groups are not "mormon" is like a Baptist saying that you are not a "christian"!

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 15 2004, 02:46 PM

Laurel,

Mormon Polygamists did not come from the split after Smith's death. They came after Woodruff with his 1890 Manifesto and JFS and his 1904 second Manifesto. So the AP is wrong.

J

PS. Saying that these polygamous groups are not "mormon" is like a Baptist saying that you are not a "christian"!

Unless you consider that there were mormon sects that split from the Brighamites that did not accept polygamy and then later polygamists split from the Brighamite split.

[Outshined]

It is interesting that most of these people do not claim any connection with the Church....sometimes the label is applied for them.

The guy in Fresno this weekend, I have heard no reference to "Mormon" with that case.....

[Jason]

Snow,

"Unless you consider that there were mormon sects that split from the Brighamites that did not accept polygamy and then later polygamists split from the Brighamite split. "

Who are you talking about? (Not the Strangites I take it...)

J

[Snow]

No Jason. Mormon fundamentalist split from the Brigham faction of the Church after the intial split (or those that went to SLC and those that stayed behind) that happened post Joseph Smith. Just semantics but technically the AP was correct.

[Stephen]

The term Mormon Fundamentalist is the common term for those polygamist groups that broke away from the Mormon Church and accept the principle of polygamy as an eternal doctrine just as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young accepted polygamy as an eternal doctrine. If the Mormon Church is still embarrassed about their past then that is a personal problem the church will have to overcome eventually.

[Snow]

Thanks for insulting us yet again Stephen. I thought we were running low on cheapshot and presto, you're here to help out.

For you more rational types... its not a matter of embarrassment, but one of being protective of your reputation.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 16 2004, 02:32 AM

Thanks for insulting us yet again Stephen. I thought we were running low on cheapshot and presto, you're here to help out.

For you more rational types... its not a matter of embarrassment, but one of being protective of your reputation.

If stating the obvious is a cheap shot then so be it. In other words any opinions that are in disagreement with the views of almighty Snow are cheap shots. Its good to know this for future reference.

For Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor and others polygamy was a doctrine that was necessary for exaltation. When the media brings facts like this to the fore front it is always going to hit a nerve and be an embarrassment to the leaders of the LDS Church.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 16 2004, 03:26 PM

If stating the obvious is a cheap shot then so be it.

Well if would be fine you that's what you do/did. State the obvious. What you actually do instead is give everything about the Church the same old, disaffected ala Stephen spin - and then try and pass it off as something other that the biased, slanted view that it is.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 16 2004, 03:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 16 2004, 03:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 16 2004, 03:26 PM

If stating the obvious is a cheap shot then so be it.

Well if would be fine you that's what you do/did. State the obvious. What you actually do instead is give everything about the Church the same old, disaffected ala Stephen spin - and then try and pass it off as something other that the biased, slanted view that it is.

If anything is biased and slanted it is your always negative attitude toward Born Again Christians. If anything is old it is your "poor me: I'm a victim" persecuted Mormon mantra. Its a broken record that keeps repeating itself over and over and over again. Like the boy who cried wolf.......you have no credibility.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 16 2004, 03:41 PM

If anything is biased and slanted it is your always negative attitude toward Born Again Christians. If anything is old it is your "poor me: I'm a victim" persecuted Mormon mantra. Its a broken record that keeps repeating itself over and over and over again. Like the boy who cried wolf.......you have no credibility.

Oh you big meany. I am not. You are.

By the way fringe boy, I am not nor have ever consider myself or the modern Church persecuted nor a victim, not for lack of clowns who try to make us that. So your wrong on that account, surprize, which make your next claim that I have no credibility, um, what, less than credible?

I have nothing in particular against Born-Agains, other than I think that many of you are kind of silly and backwoodish. It just than many/most of the idiotics and bigots who try to attack and demean the Church are Born-Agains, or claim to be.

Go into a Catholic or Jewish bookstores and check out how many imbecilic anti-Mormon diatribes have been written by members of their faith. NOt many or any. Then go into a Born-Again shop and try and count all the nasty, lying, twisted filth they right about, oh, anybody who disagrees with their particular brand of watered-down, flavor of the month theolgy. Look on the internet at any anti-Mormon site. See any Episcopals running them? Any Greek Orthodoxs?

It's not me you should be whining about. You ought to be complaining about the bigots who give the REAL Born-Again a bad name.

[Outshined]

Snow? Persecuted? I must have missed those posts........

I've never seen him claim to be persecuted, but he always points out the insults of our critics here.

[Snow]

I have been in a Sunday School class where some lass acted all indignant and spoke about how persecuted Mormons are.

BULL,

Except for the nasty look I got when I signed my daughter up at a "born-again" pre-school in response to their question and I told them I was LDS, I have never been even minorly offended by anyone. In fact, most people have lots of interesting questions and are quick to relate the positive example of other Mormons they know and are generally quite respectful - outside obvious evangelical circles.

The victim tag is utter nonsense. Only a spineless woose makes that claim. No one is a victim unless they want to be. [i am not talking about true abusive relationships and crimes]. We live in the real world, with real responsibilities and you are what you make yourself.

[Snow]

Okay okay Stephen,

I do have a serious question for you. What is it in the born-again psyche (or the psyche of many born-agains) that cause them to react to other religion in a way that I would describe as a bad case or insecurity and low-self esteem. They would describe it differently I am sure but they seem to be speaking from either a case of extreme nastiness (that's my gig) and lack of Christian perspective, OR a case of inferiority syndrome.

What cases the movement to give rise to people, like "Dr" Walter Martin and Dee Jay Nelson to lie about their credentials and write books full of lies and misstatments about other religions (Mormons)? What causes people like Sandra and Jerald Tanner to start a for-profit business and earn their livings by denigration other religions? What is it that makes people like Ed Decker write the most vile and hateful bigotry in an attempt harm another faith? Of course they are just the tip of a large cadre or equally disgusting bigots (yeah, I know - you probably want to dig up quotes from 100 years ago and more from LDS figures to show that we are blameworthy).

Granted all religious types have their weaknesses, but what flaw of moral character do such born-again types have that is so noticeably absent in the Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Jews, the Mormons, etc?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 16 2004, 05:09 PM

What cases the movement to give rise to people, like "Dr" Walter Martin and Dee Jay Nelson to lie about their credentials and write books full of lies and misstatments about other religions (Mormons)? What causes people like Sandra and Jerald Tanner to start a for-profit business and earn their livings by denigration other religions? What is it that makes people like Ed Decker write the most vile and hateful bigotry in an attempt harm another faith?

From what I can remember and it's been awhile since I've read about Dr. Walter Martin or his work, same with Dee Jay Nelson and the Tanners - but - I believe the late Dr. Martin's credentials are legit. Dee Jay Nelson was a Mormon when he was asked to help with the BofA manuscripts that were found back in the '60's. I would not call The Tanner's book store and such "a for-profit" business but "a for-living" business. It's how they make their living - or it was - I believe either they both have now retired or just Jerald has retired. I've never really been interested in Ed Decker so I don't know much about him.

M.

[Outshined]

"Dr." Martin had no doctoral degree, and his claim to be an ordained minister was also proven false. The "They Lie In Wait To Deceive" books covered Martin and Nelson. It makes interesting reading.

[Snow]

Maureen,

Outshined is right. Dr. (not a Dr. nor a PhD) Martin claimed to have earned a doctorate but in fact was a two bit liar who bought his doctorate at California diploma mill. He claimed to be an ordained minister (Southern Baptist) and in fact had once been one (prior to falsely claiming it as a creditial) but it was revoked when it was discovered that he had been divorced (divorcess were not permitted to be ordained).

Dee Jay Nelson touted himself as the "World's Leading Authority on Egyptology."   He too was a fraud who obtained a phony degree from a mail order degree mill.  He attended no classes and did no homework.  The "school" was subsequently shut down by the State of Washington. He insinuated himself into the LDS look at the BoA and even had Nibley give him a quick plug before we caught on to him. Needless to say, he didn't long remain a Mormon and then turned on the ones he tried to bamboozle.

The Tanners do indeed profit from their attacks on the LDS-Church. They are professional Church attackers and earn their living from it. Obviously they profit from it and have to pay taxes to prove it. Sandra hadn't retired as of last summer when I saw her last, busy earning a profit from attacking the Church out of her storefront.

Decker tells so many lies that it is impossible to know where to start. Basically he blames the Church for him being a serial adulterer and thus breaking up his marriage. Poor victim.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Maureen+Mar 16 2004, 06:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Mar 16 2004, 06:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 16 2004, 05:09 PM

What cases the movement to give rise to people, like "Dr" Walter Martin and Dee Jay Nelson to lie about their credentials and write books full of lies and misstatments about other religions (Mormons)? What causes people like Sandra and Jerald Tanner to start a for-profit business and earn their livings by denigration other religions? What is it that makes people like Ed Decker write the most vile and hateful bigotry in an attempt harm another faith?

From what I can remember and it's been awhile since I've read about Dr. Walter Martin or his work, same with Dee Jay Nelson and the Tanners - but - I believe the late Dr. Martin's credentials are legit. Dee Jay Nelson was a Mormon when he was asked to help with the BofA manuscripts that were found back in the '60's. I would not call The Tanner's book store and such "a for-profit" business but "a for-living" business. It's how they make their living - or it was - I believe either they both have now retired or just Jerald has retired. I've never really been interested in Ed Decker so I don't know much about him.

M.

The Tanners actually run a non-profit organization for those who really care and are not out to slander. It is true that it used to be a for profit business, but it has been a non-profit business for many years now. I only happen to know because I live down the street from them and have talked to them on a few occassions.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Stephen@Mar 17 2004, 10:59 AM

The Tanners actually run a non-profit organization for those who really care and are not out to slander. It is true that it used to be a for profit business, but it has been a non-profit business for many years now. I only happen to know because I live down the street from them and have talked to them on a few occassions.

Sorry, wrong.

Let's be clear. The Tanners write and sell literature that attacks the LDS Church. The price they obtain for writing it and selling it exceeds the cost of producing it for sale. They turn a profit on it. That is their job. They do it professionally for a living.

It may be that under the tax code they have found a way to define their money-making scheme as not for profit, but that hardly means that they don't turn a profit. It is likely that they have classified their prejudicial attack on other religions as a religious ministry itself and therefore don't have to pay taxes on their profits.

You didn't answer the question Stephen. You don't appreciate my disdain for the ugliness in the work of people like Dr. (not a Dr) Martin, the Tanners, and Ed Decker, but haven't offered an opinion on what moral defect of character drives them to the ugliness they engage in.

[Stephen]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 17 2004, 11:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 17 2004, 11:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Stephen@Mar 17 2004, 10:59 AM

The Tanners actually run a non-profit organization for those who really care and are not out to slander. It is true that it used to be a for profit business, but it has been a non-profit business for many years now. I only happen to know because I live down the street from them and have talked to them on a few occassions.

Sorry, wrong.

Let's be clear. The Tanners write and sell literature that attacks the LDS Church. The price they obtain for writing it and selling it exceeds the cost of producing it for sale. They turn a profit on it. That is their job. They do it professionally for a living.

It may be that under the tax code they have found a way to define their money-making scheme as not for profit, but that hardly means that they don't turn a profit. It is likely that they have classified their prejudicial attack on other religions as a religious ministry itself and therefore don't have to pay taxes on their profits.

You didn't answer the question Stephen. You don't appreciate my disdain for the ugliness in the work of people like Dr. (not a Dr) Martin, the Tanners, and Ed Decker, but haven't offered an opinion on what moral defect of character drives them to the ugliness they engage in.

If the Tanners make a profit it is no more of a profit then the General Authorities make with their stipends, money for cars, homes, living expenses, ect. The Tanners have a ministry that helps people who have walked away from the Mormon deception and need help in the recovery process. If the truth the Tanners have exposed upsets you soooooo much it sounds like a personal problem to me and most likely they have backed you into a theological corner with their logical reasoning and undeniable facts the Mormon Church would like to keep secret.

I don't know Walter Martin and don't particularly care for the books he has written and the sensationalism, half-truths, and lies he has told and I could say the same thing about Ed Decker. I don't know these people or have any afiliation with them and have no need or desire to try to defend them. I don't know why you think I have some association or affiliation with them. I don't even have any affiliation or assocation with the Tanners, but do feel that you have slandered them due to your bigotry and hatred towards them. Dee Jay Nelson was a Mormon so you would have to tell me why he was engaged in a deception with Hugh Nibley(a well known Mormon scholar)........can't blame that on being a Born Again Christian. Your views on this are also very skewed. I have read books by Catholics, Presbyterians, ect., that have said negative things about the Mormon Church. Its not one particular religion or group of people that speak about lies taught by the Mormon Church even if your demented mind thinks it is.

[Outshined]

Snow didn't "slander" anyone. He pointed out that the Tanners make a profit from their business, and are making money from attacking the LDS Church. This is fact. They rely on attacks against the Church for their living.

The Tanners haven't exposed any "truths" that I'm aware of; they simply take facts and come to conclusions with which many of us disagree.

And Snow "backed into a theological corner"? You've quite the imagination; I can understand why Snow gets to you.

[Snow]

If the Tanners make a profit it is no more of a profit then the General Authorities make with their stipends, money for cars, homes, living expenses, ect.

Wrong.

The GA receive income. The Tanners own and operate a business that produces revenues that exceed expense. The difference between the revenue and the expense is their profit. But let’s set aside semantics and have it your way:

How much profit do the Tanner’s make and how much do the General Authorities make. Do you know or are you just fabricating things out of whole cloth to try and win a debate? I say it is the latter. I bet you don’t know how much the Gas make (and how much they have given up for their calling and how much they have given to the Church) and also have no idea how much profit the Tanner make. Right? Yes, of course I am right.

The Tanners have a ministry that helps people who have walked away from the Mormon deception and need help in the recovery process.

DING DING DING! My BS detector just started chirping like a sparrow. This is what their website says:

“The purpose of this site is to document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare LDS doctrines with Christianity.”

The real purpose however is to promote and advertise their for-profit business of attacking Mormonism. You act like they provide counseling and professional mental health care to those pore victims who are trying ever so hard to recover. BULL. They sell literature and live off the proceeds of attacking Christians.

If the truth the Tanners have exposed upsets you soooooo much it sounds like a personal problem to me and most likely they have backed you into a theological corner with their logical reasoning and undeniable facts the Mormon Church would like to keep secret.

DONG DONG DONG, there goes the detector again. What corner am I backed into – about what – when did it happen, were there witness. Again, you just made that whole thing up. Admit it Stephen, that is a fabrication of your imagination isn’t it? Right?

I don't know why you think I have some association or affiliation with them.

Fair enough Stephen. I just ask you to speculate on what moral flaw causes them to engage in such ugly and unchristian behavior?

I don't even have any affiliation or assocation with the Tanners, but do feel that you have slandered them due to your bigotry and hatred towards them.

Do you understand what the word “slander” means Stephen, cause you are using it wrong. You understand that honesty is an absolute defense against slander, right? Exactly what have I said about the Tanners that you think is dishonest?

I have read books by Catholics, Presbyterians, ect., that have said negative things about the Mormon Church. Its not one particular religion or group of people that speak about lies taught by the Mormon Church even if your demented mind thinks it is.

Okay Stephen, let’s settle this right now. Show this board one single Catholic or Jewish website dedicated to attacking Mormons.

Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Still waiting.

Okay then if you can’t do that, show me an anti-Mormon website run by a religiously based group (the disaffected victims of RFM and their ilk don’t qualify) that is not run by Evangelical types.

I’ll wait.

[Guest lt]

If you guys would have noticed it was an article I was sharing with you because it was interesting to me and I thought you would enjoy it.....now get the popcorn and chill and read