Comments on: Polygamy Not Mormon

By: ed

ed — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:49:42 +0000

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.

By: David J

David J — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:31:58 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 07:21:21 +0000

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.

By: RoastedTomatoes

RoastedTomatoes — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:14:36 +0000

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…

By: john f.

john f. — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:00:26 +0000

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?

By: RoastedTomatoes

RoastedTomatoes — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:56:13 +0000

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.