By Popular Demand
by John G. Turner
End-of-the-semester busyness has prevented me from closely following the media firestorm resulting from the raid of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Also, I'm not in any sense intimately familiar with either the legal details of the case or the history of government action against polygamist sects. However, in the interest of our loyal readers...
The amount of media coverage reflects popular fascination with both with polygamy and Mormonism (more on the latter below). When I read about the raid, I immediately thought of several historical precedents: the arrest of Mormon "cohabs" in the 1880s, the 1953 Short Creek (later renamed Colorado City) raid, and the 1993 Waco Siege. The latter had nothing to do with Mormonism but involved polygamy and child abuse as well as weapons violations. In my mind, none of these serve as good models for government action against allegedly deviant behavior.
Instead of following the legal details of the case, I'm interested in the reaction of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For example, see this press release from the church "Newsroom":
Elder Cook said it is very confusing to the public when some media use “Mormon” to describe the Texas-based polygamous group that is currently under investigation for possible incidents of child abuse. He reiterated that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with over 13 million members worldwide, is not connected in any way to sects that practice polygamy.
The Church's "Style Guide" encourages the media to make clear distinctions between the mainstream Church and offshoots like the FLDS:
When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons,” “Mormon fundamentalist,” “Mormon dissidents,” etc. 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.”
I can well understand the Church's desire to distance itself from current-day polygamists. I groan every semester when students ask me whether the Latter-day Saints still practice polygamy. I imagine a large number believe that they do (at least until I enlighten them). Any association with FLDS folks, moreover, casts doubt on the Church's more recent self-presentation as a mainstream American religion.
That being said, the term "Mormon fundamentalist" or "fundamentalist Mormon" still seems commonsensical to me as long as other proper distinctions are made. After all, these are Latter Day Saints who broke away -- or were forced out -- after the Church discontinued the practice of polygamy. The Church began excommunicating polygamists around 1909, and those who wished to continue the practice of taking additional wives eventually formed the FLDS and other offshoots. The FLDS church, to the best of my knowledge, understands itself as adhering to the fundamentals of the Restoration begun by Joseph Smith, Jr.
I know we have some Latter-day Saint readers out there. I hesitated to post on this issue because it is controversial and I don't feel on solid ground. However, for the sake of further discussion, I wanted to raise this issue of terminology. Any thoughts or suggestions?
For futher reading, I recommend this post by Jonathan Stapley at By Common Consent, one of my favorite Mormon blogs:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/04/information-on-sectarian-polygamy/
End-of-the-semester busyness has prevented me from closely following the media firestorm resulting from the raid of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Also, I'm not in any sense intimately familiar with either the legal details of the case or the history of government action against polygamist sects. However, in the interest of our loyal readers...
The amount of media coverage reflects popular fascination with both with polygamy and Mormonism (more on the latter below). When I read about the raid, I immediately thought of several historical precedents: the arrest of Mormon "cohabs" in the 1880s, the 1953 Short Creek (later renamed Colorado City) raid, and the 1993 Waco Siege. The latter had nothing to do with Mormonism but involved polygamy and child abuse as well as weapons violations. In my mind, none of these serve as good models for government action against allegedly deviant behavior.
Instead of following the legal details of the case, I'm interested in the reaction of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For example, see this press release from the church "Newsroom":
Elder Cook said it is very confusing to the public when some media use “Mormon” to describe the Texas-based polygamous group that is currently under investigation for possible incidents of child abuse. He reiterated that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with over 13 million members worldwide, is not connected in any way to sects that practice polygamy.
The Church's "Style Guide" encourages the media to make clear distinctions between the mainstream Church and offshoots like the FLDS:
When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons,” “Mormon fundamentalist,” “Mormon dissidents,” etc. 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.”
I can well understand the Church's desire to distance itself from current-day polygamists. I groan every semester when students ask me whether the Latter-day Saints still practice polygamy. I imagine a large number believe that they do (at least until I enlighten them). Any association with FLDS folks, moreover, casts doubt on the Church's more recent self-presentation as a mainstream American religion.
That being said, the term "Mormon fundamentalist" or "fundamentalist Mormon" still seems commonsensical to me as long as other proper distinctions are made. After all, these are Latter Day Saints who broke away -- or were forced out -- after the Church discontinued the practice of polygamy. The Church began excommunicating polygamists around 1909, and those who wished to continue the practice of taking additional wives eventually formed the FLDS and other offshoots. The FLDS church, to the best of my knowledge, understands itself as adhering to the fundamentals of the Restoration begun by Joseph Smith, Jr.
I know we have some Latter-day Saint readers out there. I hesitated to post on this issue because it is controversial and I don't feel on solid ground. However, for the sake of further discussion, I wanted to raise this issue of terminology. Any thoughts or suggestions?
For futher reading, I recommend this post by Jonathan Stapley at By Common Consent, one of my favorite Mormon blogs:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/04/information-on-sectarian-polygamy/
Comments
I typically go with "Sectarian Polygamists," though that covers Christian polygamists that share no history with Mormonism.
Also, the most thorough coverage on the Texas-FLDS situation that I've found is available at messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com,a Mormon blog run by an LDS lawyer.
When conservative Protestants in the early 1900s either left or were kicked out of the mainstream Protestant denominations and formed their own groups, they called themselves fundamentalists and were called as such by others. Perhaps the key is self-identification. In the FLDS case, they at least identify themselves as Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints. Do they call themselves "Mormon fundamentalists" or "fundamentalist Mormons?" There clearly is an organic connection to mainstream Mormonism. Perhaps simply using the name FLDS is enough to make that connection clear without being offensive to other Latter-day Saints.
I see a strong parallel between fundamentalist muslims who blow things up and the mainstream muslims who want to distance themselves from the other group. The fundamentalist groups tend to be FAR smaller but get a lot more (generally negative) publicity.
Right now there is a group of people in Russia living in a cave convinced that the end of the world is going to happen in a few weeks. This group calls themselves the "true" Russian Orthodox church. Their leader is in a mental institution.
It would be understandable for Orthodox people to be upset if the media kept calling the group Russian Orthodox when they are in no way connected to the church.Or for the media to say that Orthodox people live in caves. Or that Orthodox people believe the end of the world will happen in May of 2008.
As for the term fundamentalist, why is it never used in an honorific way. I mean, are there not fundamentalist peace activists or fundamentalist civil rights advocates? Is fundamentalist simply a dogged follower of one perspective, or must it necessarily be applied to one with view demonstrably outside the mainstream? I suspect it has now evolved into the latter, since I never hear of any mainstream group trying to salvage the term.
That being the case, a phrase like "fundamentalist polygamous sect" is kind of redundant, whereas "fundamentalist mormon" actually communicates something, namely, that this particular mormon group is extreme and not to be identified with the mainstream LDS.
Therefore, "radical" can be positive or negative.
If you are a "radical fundamentalist"...I have no idea what that means.