They're not Mormons? Really?

Our copy editor Ward Triplett caught this correction on the LAT-Washington Post wire service Friday:

A Los Angeles Times (story) about the HBO series “Big Love” referred to the character of Bill Henrickson as “a semi-closeted Mormon entrepreneur” with three wives. The Henricksons are not Mormons. Their faith is based on “the Principle of Plural Marriage” and has led them to become inactive with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

My first thought was that this was the work of a PR official for the LDS Church, who persuaded a non-churchgoing wire editor to run a correction, kind of like the people who take out ads in journalism magazines to remind you that unless it's actual Kleenex, please call it something else.

Then again, it may have just been a reader, like this one who wrote in to the Concord (N.H.) Monitor when the same story ran in its pages last week:

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms Mormons, Mormon fundamentalist, (and) Mormon dissidents, 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 question of how to correctly use the term Mormon was addressed in a 2006 Church Public Affairs commentary piece, "Use of the Word Mormon in News Reports." The following is an excerpt from the article:

"In the public mind, the word Mormon has come to mean something very specific. It conjures up images of Mormon missionaries on bikes, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and Mormon temples. It has become a synonym for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints. Consequently, when Mormon is used the describe polygamist groups, it causes great confusion about our beliefs among the general public and frustration to our members, which number over 12 million worldwide."

At the very least, though, the LDS hierarchy deserves at least an assist for this widely-published correction. After all, the church's marketing arm has spent decades producing pro-family TV ads with the same tagline ("THE MORMONS") laying claim, more or less of the exclusive kind, to the M-word.

In fact, however, there are splinter groups, including the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, that also call themselves "Mormons." Most of these groups are in Utah and their members at least believe in polygamy, even if they choose not to practice it. Both daily newspapers in Salt Lake City ran a story about a recent census of these groups, and both papers flouted AP style and referred to them as "fundamentalist Mormons." At least one web site refers to fundamentalism as "true Mormonism" -- a claim that will ring true to every mainline Protestant who knows anything about fundamentalists in their own branch of Christianity.

Of course, there are only 37,000 of these Mormons at last count, most of them live quietly away from urban areas (Juniper Creek, perhaps?), and they don't appear to have a public relations office.

Anyway, the "Big Love" season finale is tonight on HBO.

Comments

[CM]

Well, put it this way: If you were to ask a polygamist in Utah whether he was a Mormon, he would say no, thinking you wondered if he were mainstream LDS. He would carefully qualify his answer and tell you that he was some variety of fundamentalist.

The term Mormon was originally intended to be very insulting and pejorative and it's use by non-Mormons was pretty much like the N-word. However, Mormons accepted themselves and the label, so the pejorative bite to the word eventually went away.

It's only because the confusion as to whether or not Mormons practice polygamy is still around that the LDS church makes a point of clarifying this distinction. They'd actually prefer to be referred to as Latter-day Saints.

[Curtis]

I am a History teacher. My only problem with calling them modern polygamists "Mormons" is that we never call Protestants "Catholics" - even though they broke away from the Catholic Church over doctrinal disputes just like these modern polygamists broke away from the Mormon Church. Once we start calling Protestants "fundamentalist Catholics" I will support calling these people "fundamentalist Mormons". I think I owe my Mormon friends that courtesy.

[Aaron]

Well, I'm a history publisher (click my name below for the URL), and your comparison is bogus. Fundamentalist Mormons apparently call themselves Mormons right now; it's not an anachronism that journalists are trying to revive. And your comparison to the Reformation is bizarre. That was a progressive movement, whereas Protestant fundamentalism was a reaction to the progressivism of the early 20th century church.

[Aaron]

(By the way, that's me in the above comment. I forget that outsiders don't know about my side business with Mrs. TV Barn.)

[M. Wayne]

As a member of the LDS faith, I think I understand the confusion. In a broad sense, anyone who follows Christ is a Christian. Though some will tell you differently, especially those who are anti-Mormon. In that sense, then anyone who embraces the Book of Mormon as scripture along with the Bible, is a 'Mormon'. Speaking personally, I don't have a problem with that. I think what we have is the desire to avoid certain sterotypes associated with the term 'Mormon'. Use of the term 'Mormon' as associated with Big Love brings to mind, Fundamental Mormons (FLDS). Those associated with the denial of polygamy but embraced the Book of Mormon and you have the no longer existing RLDS brand of 'Mormon'. Adn don't forget the term, 'jack-mormon'. That one comes with a sting all its own.

The LDS Church wishes to distance itself from those who practice polygamy today. As the LDS Chruch considers those who practice polygamy to be in violation of God's commandments. I understand that.

Beyond that, however, the term 'Mormon' has come to have several different meaning. Maybe, we all need to learn to deal with that.

[WizardBoy]

"Big Love" had its finale on SUNDAY, Aug. 26 on HBO. They moved it back to Sunday for the last 2 (3?) episodes, after "John" departed for Cincinnati the last time.

[Aaron]

But ... it DID air tonight at 9! OK, it serves me right for not fact checking the HBO screeners (whose covers still insist that the show airs on Monday).

Anyway, it's been eons since I watched anything in real time on HBO. I don't even watch "Real Time with Bill Maher" in real time, which I suppose is depriving me of the show's full entertainment value.

[Curtis]

Aaron, I understand where you are coming from, but the Protestants who broke away from Catholicism believed they were returning to a more pure version of Christ's teachings than what existed in the Catholic Church at the time. They were rejecting the changes in doctrine and practice they believed had occurred over the centuries. Protestants now call that "progressive" - but the reformers saw it as a return to ancient, Biblical truth. In that way, at least, they were exactly like "fundamentalist Mormons" who rejected what they saw as incorrect changes in practice and doctrine within the mainstream Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints and tried to return to the former teachings.

[WizardBoy]

Yes, BL did repeat on Monday. I am like you, Aaron, mostly watch the HBO shows other than "real time".

Now, if only broadcast TV would learn from FX, HBO, etc., and have multiple showings of their programs, maybe they would get viewers to try some new shows. Don't think it would happen, but they could stop this silly "counter-programming" and time-shifting and we could catch BOTH programs we like and not worry about "appointment television".

I don't think it will happen, as I said, but I have been suggesting it for years.

[Mark Jeffries]

The Big 4 aren't going to do it because it's a cable programming ploy. Their view is that America expects a broadcast schedule in which at least 18 out of 22 hours of programming is unrepeated each week within that week (12 out of 15 on Fox) and a separate daytime and late-night schedule. And besides, they're losing control of daytime, a place where these repeats could happen, because the stations make a lot more money off of syndicated talk and court shows and don't want the networks taking back that time they gave up.

[Brent Hartman]

Fundamentalist Mormons do consider themselves to be "Mormon". As the Apostle Heber C. Kimball said, "You might as well deny "Mormonism," and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned." (J.D., vol 5, p. 203)

From the perspective of the fundamentalist Mormons, the LDS church has denied Mormonism and turned away from it. Brigham Young said, "Hear it, ye Elders of Israel, and mark it down in your log books, the fulness of the Gospel is the United Order and the order of Plural Marriage." (Spoken at dedication of St. George Temple)

Are these two principles accepted by the LDS church today? That can easily be answered by seeing if they practice the United Order and Plural Marriage. They don't. Would "Mormon", or "Apostate" apply more to the LDS church today? From the fundamentalist perspective it would be the latter.

The following quote is from the style guide, found at the newsroom at LDS.org.

"While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use."

That, which the LDS church has rejected, is gladly accepted by the fundamentalist Mormons.

[Aaron]

Well, but if you listen between the lines to that Poltrack podcast (uh, one of them, can't remember which), even CBS seems to be viewing Friday as a potential "DVR inventory night," where shows are programmed in the hopes folks will record them and then watch them on Saturday, Sunday or even Monday (75 hours from airtime is still OK, though don't expect the movie studios to be happy about those Monday viewings).

[Aaron]

Oops, Brent overwrote me. And a very nice contribution from Brent -- exactly the kind of context I was hoping for in the comments.

[Dave]

At the risk of offending almost everybody...
I *love* the show since it's simply HILARIOUS.

[CM]

Instead of referring to the Journal of Discourses, which is not official doctrine, as the definitive sourcebook on how fundamentalists ought to behave, why don't you consult everyday practice?

As I said, if you were to ask a Utah polygamist if he were a Mormon, he would qualify that answer, thinking that a reply of Mormon would associate him with the mainstream church. He doesn't want that.

His beliefs aren't so tied to the title of "Mormon" that he feels he is denying Christ or his version of the gospel by saying he is not a Mormon. As I said, the term "Mormon" was a slang, pejorative epithet thought up by those who violently persecuted members of this church. There is nothing "sacred" about this title. It is not akin to denying that you are a Christian, for instance. It's more like saying you are not a Baptist, but a Methodist.

Yes, polygamists accept the broad-stroke title of Mormon, as believers in the Book of Mormon. If they couldn't be confused with the mainstream church they would likely adopt it. But in all my encounters and dealings with polygamists I have never met one who identified him or herself as a Mormon.

[Brent Hartman]

The Journal of Discoures may not be official doctrine to the LDS church today, but it is official doctrine to those who haven't rejected the revelations and teachings of the early leaders of the church. Here's what they said about the Journal of Discoures.

This from Brigham Young: “The Journal of Discourses is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people,. But especially to the Saints” (J.D., Pref. Vol. 11).

From George Q. Cannon: “The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every right-minded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of `the light that shines from Zion’s hill’” (J.D., Pref. Vol 8).

From Joseph F. Smith: “We regret that the circulation of the Journal of Discourses is so limited. Its importance would warrant a thousandfold greater extension of this work. We anticipate a time, not distant in the future when a copy of the present volume will be more precious than gold. It is even now almost impossible to obtain a complete series” (J.D. Pref. Vol. 18).

One final statement by George Q. Cannon from his Preface to volume 9: “All men can be profited by perusing its pages and pondering over the words of truth and salvation as they flow in beautiful simplicity and power from the mouths of the Living Oracles.”

Once again, we gladly accept that which you have rejected.

[mel]

Let's review.

The origins of the LDS include plural marriage (and celestial marriage.)

Today's LDS distance themselves from it not becasue of new revalation, but legal problems. It would put the church in the position of advocating the violation the laws of most states.

Not very honest, eh?

[JLF]

Referring to polygamists as Mormons is like saying Lutherans are Catholics. They are not and neither denomination says they are. It is only the liberal news media and the anti Romney McCain supporters who suggest the LDS and polygamists are the same. Remember: this is McCain et al in cahoots with the leftists and dems.

[JLF]

A living prophet is preferable to a dead one. Ask President Gordon Hinckley about these matters. Dragging up opinions from over a hundred years ago is meaningless. If you want to know what the official church position is ask someone who knows. Ask the Church. It really isn't rocket science folks.

[Brent Hartman]

JLF,

So the words of the prophets a hundred years ago are meaningless? I can only imagine what you think of the prophets of the New and Old Testament. Not much point to scripture study when all those words come from dead prophets.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous." (Matt. 23:29)

You declare "meaningless" the words of the very men who you claim to have restored the gospel of Jesus Christ. The same men that you honor with statues, books, and universities, but yet you decry their words as meaningless.

Just remember, you still covenant in the temple to live the law of consecration. Section 132 is still in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you will never find a direct revelation from God that ends those two principles. Perhaps a press release, but not a direct revelation.

It's odd to me that the LDS would define a "Mormon" as one who finds the words of men like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Franklin D. Richards, and Heber C. Kimball as being meaningless, but then again, the great message of the Book of Mormon is that people reject the gospel and drift into apostasy. Of course, that was just the opinion of some dead prophets.

[Alan B]

The Mormon History Association is a highly respected organization that has been in existence for 42 years. Their annual conference is considered the preeminent scholarly conference on Mormon historical topics.

This group is independent of the LDS Church and accepts papers on all Mormon sects under the umbrella of Mormonism.

It strikes me as preposterous that a group of people who accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, the Book of Mormon as divinely revealed scripture, and a host of additional revelations and translations given by Joseph Smith as divinely inspired, would be denied the privilege of referring to themselves as Mormons.

It would be like the Catholic Church denying Protestant churches the right of calling themselves Christians.

By the way, I am an active member of the LDS Church, but I don't accept their attempts to waylay this long-rejected term as their own property.

[Dave]

Once again - this is simply a *hilarious* TV show.
Does it "respect" the views of Mormons/LDS/Fundamentalists?
No idea.
Does ANYONE feel threatened by this?
If so,why?

[Kyle Bird]

On the show itself, the Henricksons don't consider themselves to be Mormons; they have referred to the Church of LDS as a separate entity several times. However, because there is a Mormon Republican running for President, dishonest left-wingers are doing everything they can to link the Mormon religion to polygamy (apparently, they're quite afraid of Mitt Romney - God knows why, because he's like a right-wing John Kerry with all his flip-flopping). I have to laugh at all the so-called liberals - they're just as hateful and intolerant as they right wing that they so clearly despise and fear. Of course, I wouldn't expect unbiased reporting from anyone who goes around praising Al Jazeera.

[Mark Jeffries]

Hey Kyle:

Have you actually watched Al Jazeera English? Or are you just parroting your idols Loofah Felafel and Rush Vicodin? Don't make a comment until you've actually seen it.

[Brent Hartman]

Every fundamentalist I know, and I know more than a few, considers themselves to be Mormon. They don't, however, consider themselves to be LDS. The fundamentalist wouldn't want to loose their temple recommends by associating with the LDS apostates. ;)