Controlling the Mormon Fundamentalism narrative...

 

Downtown Salt Lake City, Utah

By Greg Knight

For too long, the mainstream media and the LDS church have been in charge of defining the discussion on Mormon Fundamentalism. We aim to take that power back and become bearers of truth as it is, not as others want it to be portrayed....

In Utah, Nevada and many more gathering places across North America, the term "Mormon Fundamentalism" has had a stigma attached to it for decades, if not longer. The Fundamentalist wants to help remove that stigma and help fellow travelers, as well as non-believers, understand each other. We have more in common than we have distinctions as fundamentalists. That's a point we want to drive home. 

One of the best parts of this life is the agency we have to believe the truth, or disregard it. Living that agency is one of the best aspects of life, just as obedience to Him that reigns is of the utmost importance. It is up to each one of us as priesthood holders and members of a family, to live the life we know will gain us an ultimate salvation and hopefully exaltation. As those who believe we have the truth of His church, we want to spread the wholesome message of our faith.

The Fundamentalist is currently a blog, with aspirations to become a website and a quarterly - and possibly monthly - magazine in print form. It is intended as an open dialogue between Mormon Fundamentalists, as is meant to bring believers in the restoration together.

Here's a good example of media bias that affected perception for generations: The Short Creek raid of 1953. Per Wikipedia:

One of the few media outlets to applaud the raid was the Salt Lake City-based Deseret News, which was owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The News applauded the action as a needed response to prevent the fundamentalists from becoming "a cancer of a sort that is beyond hope of human repair." When the paper later editorialized its support for separating children from their polygamist parents, there was a backlash against the paper and the church by a number of Latter-day Saints, including Juanita Brooks, who complained that the church organization was approving of "such a basically cruel and wicked thing as the taking of little children from their mother." The Short Creek raid was the last action against polygamous Mormon fundamentalists that has been actively supported by the LDS Church."

Or how about a post from The Atlantic magazine, dated July 9, 2005:

Now that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, writer Freddie de Boer wants its proponents to adopt a new focus. “Where does the next advance come?” he asks in an essay at Politico. “Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy.”

The time is ripe, he argues, in part because there’s no longer a strategic reason to hold off. “To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values,” he observes. “But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed.”

He proceeds to argue that “the case against polygamy is incredibly flimsy, almost entirely lacking in rational basis and animated by purely irrational fears and prejudice.” And he goes further, insisting that even if there are pragmatic reasons to deny state-sanction to polygamous marriage, we must extend it anyway because it is a human right. “We must insist that rights cannot be dismissed out of short-term interests of logistics and political pragmatism,” he says in the essay, adding in a followup blog post that “logistics are never sufficient reason to deny human rights.”

All three of those arguments strike me as wrongheaded.

I suspect that there are still strategic reasons for gay-marriage advocates to refrain from pushing for plural marriage; there are numerous rational arguments against state endorsement of group marriages; and having a polygamous marriage recognized and incentivized by the state is not a human right.

By this author's reasoning, anyone who would pursue plural marriage as a religious belief would be labeled as pursuing something deemed as subhuman.

It pains me to no end when I hear stories about folks who, while living the life they believe in wholeheartedly and without reserve, are discriminated against in work, housing, social circles or otherwise. And this type of discrimination is not reserved to just Utah or other parts of the Mountain West - I've had fundamentalist friends in Canada, Mexico and even California tell me stories about how they lost a job or other opportunities for living their faith.

It has to end, I believe. And if we can help draw that line in the sand and say "no more," so be it.

I'll leave you with this... an amazing sermon by Pres. Wilford Woodruff given in 1891, after the First Manifesto press release had been divulged to the world:

...This testament which Joseph Smith left, contains a revelation and commandment from God, out of heaven, concerning the patriarchal order of marriage.  The Lord has commanded us to have our wives and children sealed to us, for time and eternity, that we may have them with us in our family organizations in the resurrection, to dwell with us forever in the eternal worlds, that we may have an increase of posterity forever in connection with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the ancient patriarchs.  And God our Heavenly Father, knowing that this was the only law ordained by the Gods of eternity that would exalt immortal beings to kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers and dominions, and heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ to a fullness of celestial glory, I say, the God of Israel knowing these things, commanded Joseph Smith, the prophet, and the Latter-day Saints, to obey this law, "or you shall be damned", saith the Lord.
 
    Now, after having obeyed the law for many years, the Congress of the United States, and the supreme judges of the nation, stand forth and say, "you shall be damned if you do obey it."  Now, Latter-day Saints, what are we going to do under the circumstances?  God says, "We shall be damned if we do not obey the law" Congress says, "We shall be damned if we do."  It places us precisely in the same position that it did the Hebrews in the Fiery furnace, and Daniel in the den of lions.  The enemies of Daniel counseled together and said, "We cannot find any occasion against Daniel except we find it against him concerning the law of His God".  Our enemies have pursued the same course, and the lawmakers and judges of the nation have joined them, and made it a law of offense to obey one of the laws of our God.  Now, who shall we obey?  God or man?  My voice is, we will obey God.  We have but a short time to live here; we have a long eternity to live on the other side of the veil.

Thus situated, the matter is taken entirely out of our hands, the warfare is now between God and the nation. I am an American citizen, born and raised in the state of Connecticut.  I wish to ask the lawmakers and judges of the government a few questions: By what power was Columbus inspired and moved upon to plead before courts of Europe to assist him to fit out a fleet to cross the ocean and find a Western Continent?  By what power was he protected until he accomplished this?  By what power were our forefathers inspired to cross the ocean to inhabit this land? And when they had inhabited the land, and the yoke of bondage laid upon their necks by the Mother Country became too grievous to be born they rose up as a nation and declared their independence, and passed through an eight years' war at the expense of much blood and treasure, and finally obtained their liberty, and established a free and independent government, which was acknowledged by the nations of the earth?  By what power was the constitution of the United States inspired, framed and adopted, as the supreme law of the land, to be handed down as a rich legacy to posterity from generation to generation? All these blessings have been obtained by the inspiration of Almighty God and the will of heaven. 

 
    This glorious instrument guarantees to all its citizens the rights of religion, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right of the enjoyment of religion of any citizen of this republic, has never been questioned by any Congress or Judges of the law, until of late, when both the Congress of the United States and the supreme judges of the law sought, by their action, to deprive a hundred and fifty thousand of her citizens of the right to enjoy their religion which the constitution guarantees unto them.  Will not the same God who has given this nation a free government and an inspired constitution of equal rights to all men who inhabit its broad domain, hold the rulers and judges of the law responsible for the use they make of the power in their hands?  He will. 

 
    The Congress of 1862, and the Supreme Judges of 1879, in their acts and decisions, have taken a dangerous and fearful step; their acts will sap the very foundation of our government, and it will be rent asunder and the God of Heaven will hold them responsible for these things, for "what men sow they will reap, and the measure they mete unto others will be meted unto them", saith the Lord.  The Constitution once broken by the rulers of the land, there will be no stopping place until the nation is broken in pieces, and no power beneath the Heavens can save this nation from the consequences thereof; and all rulers of this nation, as well as other nations will have to give an account unto the judge of all the earth for the use they make of the power put into their hands.  Virtue exalteth a nation, while sin is a reproach to any people.
 
    The question was asked the Hebrews, "What God is there that is able to deliver you out of the hands of King Nebuchadnezzar?" A righteous answer of faith was given, "That we do not know as our God will deliver us out of your hands, but one thing we know, that we will not bow down and worship the Golden Image which thou hast set up".  So say I, as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, I will not desert my wives and my children and disobey the commandments of God, for the sake of accommodating the public clamor of a nation steeped in sin and ripened for the damnation of Hell!  I would rather go to prison and to death. If I would not, I would never be fit to associate with the prophets and patriarchs of old, and I could not but despise in my heart any man who professed to be a Latter-day Saint who would do otherwise.  Why should we fear man who only has power to kill the body, more than him who has power to cast both soul and body into Hell?  Christ says, "When men speak all manner of evil against you, and persecute you for righteousness sake, rejoice and be exceeding glad, for so persecuted they the prophets and apostles who were before you."
 
    I would say to all Israel, treat your wives and children kindly and keep the commandments of God and trust in Him, and He will fight your battles.  And I will say in the Name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, that "Mormonism" will live and prosper; Zion will flourish, and the kingdom of God will stand in power and glory and dominion as Daniel saw it, when this nation is broken to pieces as a potter's vessel and land in the dust and brought to judgment, or God never spoke by my mouth.

Well said, Pres. Woodruff... well said.

You can reach me at fundamentalistmag@gmail.com.