Polygamy Not Mormon
CNN is running a timely headline considering all the buzz lately in the Bloggernacle regarding polygamy. Few if any Latter-day Saints will have any sympathy for Warren Jeffs, the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The headline reads, “Woman sues polygamous Mormon sect.” The question this raises for me is, should polygamous followers of Warren Jeffs be referred to as Mormons? What makes a Mormon?
These people have no part whatsoever in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon Church. Thus, in this sense they could not be considered Mormon. But what does “Mormon” refer to? If it refers to an ethnicity, could these people still be Mormons even though they reject the Church and its teachings, including and especially the abolition of polygamy? Does their adherence to polygamy itself actually make them Mormons, given that polygamy was one of the defining characteristics of being a Mormon since at least the Nauvoo period? Headlines like this are unfortunate for the Church from a PR standpoint, because they inevitably confuse who is who and what “real” Mormons, i.e. members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Brighamites, as ex and anti-Mormons love to label us pejoratively, believe and practice as part of their religion. But despite this unfortunate aspect of the headlines, the question remains whether they are really inaccurate.
Since “Mormon” is not an official designation, it seems like these apostates who practice polygamy and reject the authority and keys of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, might just as well have equal claim to it, especially if they hold to the Book of Mormon (I don’t know whether they do–I am terribly ill-informed about these people). Is there any reason why members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should care if these people appropriate the “Mormon” label or the press gives it to them? Perhaps it would be better if Latter-day Saints themselves simply left it behind and recognized it for the epithet that it is.
The fundamentalist Mormons certainly do believe in the Book of Mormon. Many of them also believe that the LDS church has the true priesthood of God, but that the leadership has become misguided and a divine reformation (led by the “one mighty and strong” that they expect as a new prophetic messenger) will be needed within the church.
Given the official disavowal of the use of the word “Mormon” by the church, I think we’re in a very weak position to deny the term to people like this, who adhere quite closely to their best understanding of 19th-century Mormonism.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — December 15, 2005 @ 12:56 am
If the fundamentalists have every right to it, should this weigh in favor or against our permanent rejection of the epithet, at least here in the United States?
Comment by john f. — December 15, 2005 @ 1:00 am
I’m not sure how to answer that question, John. We can’t really hope to flee the association we have in terms of public opinion with polygamy or with the word “Mormon.” People are going to continue to associate the actions of fundamentalist Mormons with the rest of us, regardless of the decisions that we make about branding.
At least once a month, someone asks me in all seriousness whether Serenity Valley is my first wife. The polygamy image remains a major component of the popular image of Mormonism — these days supplemented, I suppose, with homophobia…
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — December 15, 2005 @ 1:14 am
RT, over here on the other coast people don’t seem to associate the Church with homophobia. At least nobody I’ve met has brought it up (well, one person asked out of curiosity the Church’s stance on homosexuality but she had no preconceptions). Polygamy? All the time.
I’m not sure we’ll ever be rid of this PR problem. And we can’t complain too much–it is of our own doing.
We can disavow “Mormon” all we want, but it will stick. And “Mormon” and “polygamy” will always go together, I’m afraid.
Comment by Tom — December 15, 2005 @ 2:21 am
I guess for some people in the media, qualifying the term “Mormon” with the adjective “polygamous” clearly draws the line that it’s not the regular Mormon church. But still, I think the report could have said “polygamous splinter Mormon sect” or something along those lines.
Even the word “sect” now has negative connotations. The counter-cultists I know generally have a nuanced, distinct definition for the term, much like they do for “cult” — even though, IMO, both terms could, at one point in time, apply to what is now mainstream Christianity. Actually, both terms are just an invitation for mud-slinging, really.
John, I don’t really think there’s any work-around for these people and for the media. The two together seem bent on using the term “Mormon” for things along this vein. That said, I really don’t see why the media can’t make the effort to qualify the term a bit. Personally, I like to consider myself Mormon before any other nomenclature, even that of “Christian,” because I am, first and foremost, a Mormon (even tho I may have many Protestant tendencies). That’s the best way to define me. But is it the best way to define anybody who thinks JS was inspired and the BofM is the word of God? I think that remains to be seen, but I don’t think the media or the off-shoots will make a move to make any further distinctions. I bet the polygamous folks in southern Utah or wherever get a kick out of being called “Mormon” though–as if to “stick it to the Church” so to speak. Who knows.
Comment by David J — December 15, 2005 @ 9:31 am
I can’t think of any phrase other than “polygamous Mormon sect” that is both as short and as accurate. I think we’re just going to have to live with phrases like this. The best we can hope for is that the distinctions are clearly spelled out somewhere in the stories.
Comment by ed — December 15, 2005 @ 2:49 pm