FLDS vs LDS by Scott Gordon of F.A.I.R

The recent raids on the FLDS church in Texas once again brought the attention of the public back to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at a time when things had begun to quiet down after Mitt Romney dropped out of the presidential race. The fact that journalists and other media figures have sometimes called the members of the FLDS church Mormon has led to confusion, and this in turn has led to many questions being asked about the differences between the LDS and FLDS churches.

It is understandable why many people outside of the Church would confuse the LDS and FLDS churches. Few people pay attention to the various splinter groups of any sect or denomination. For example, do you know the differences between the various Muslim, Baptist, and Lutheran faith traditions? Probably not. Some journalists have begun to make the attempt to clarify to their readers that the LDS and FLDS churches are two different groups. But many people still don't understand that.

An example of this confusion can be seen in Jon Krakauers book, "Under the Banner of Heaven," where the author argues that the LDS church should "do something" about the polygamy problem. I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Krakauer had in mind that the LDS church should do. Frankly, I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that any church should take action against someone other than terminating his or her membership in that church. But Krakauer seems to believe that we somehow have influence over a group that is not now and never has been a part of us. I'm sure that those who have left the Church would be very uncomfortable if the press started saying the LDS church should "do something" about the ex-Mormon Foundation or the ex-Mormon Internet message boards.

So where did the FLDS church come from and just how closely connected is it to the LDS church? The FLDS claim that their line of authority starts with Wilford Woodruff, but then their leadership continues as follows:

• Lorin Wolley, excommunicated from the LDS church in 1924.
• Leslie Broadbent, excommunicated from the LDS church in 1929.
• John Barlow, excommunicated from the LDS church in 1923.
• Joseph Musser, excommunicated from the LDS church in 1929.
• Charles Zitting, excommunicated from the LDS church in 1928.
• Leroy Johnson, excommunicated from the LDS church in 1935.
• Rulon Jeffs, excommunicated from the LDS church 1941.

Warren Jeffs, son of Rulon Jeffs, was born in 1956 and has never been a member of the LDS church. Most members of the FLDS church have never been members of the LDS church but are the children or grandchildren of Latter-day Saints who were excommunicated in the 1920s and 1930s.

There are those who say that modern fundamentalists are a reflection of 19th-century Mormonism and that looking at this group is like looking into our past. I reject that claim because there are deep and significant differences between the two groups. Granted, both groups believe in the Book of Mormon and both groups either practice, or have practiced, plural marriage. I'm sure that upon investigation you can find other similarities as well. But the differences between the two groups, both past and present, are great.

We do not isolate ourselves from the communities where we live. Even when geographically isolated, we have always been known for actively engaging the rest of society through missionary travels and encouraging others to visit our communities. Latter-day Saints have always eagerly sought out magazines, newspapers, and books from other parts of the country and world and have strongly encouraged our members to be well-read and acquainted with the events of the world. While keeping to our standards of modesty, we retain the dress and grooming standards of the cultures where we live.

We strongly encourage education and have a long history of sending LDS men and women to the best colleges and universities in the world, both as students and as educators, and today LDS members average a higher level of education than the general population of the United States and Canada.

http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?s331

The FLDS practice the "Law of placing," or assignment of marriages, combined with a high level of control of the membership. This contrasts greatly with the LDS. We have no arranged marriages and the average age for LDS marriages is 23. Throughout LDS history, free agency has been a ruling principle. In 19th century LDS plural marriages women were freely allowed to marry, divorce, and leave the community. My own great-great-grandmother, Elizabeth Clark Crouch, was in a plural marriage, and she divorced her husband and left the community with no ramifications. There was no danger of having her children reassigned to anyone else. It was more difficult for men to obtain a divorce, as it was believed that the men should provide economic and social support since there was no state welfare program and women had limited employment opportunities. Kathryn M. Daynes discusses the economic underpinnings of plural marriage in her book titled "More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910."

Some critics try to draw parallels with the FLDS because in the 19th century some LDS women were getting married while still teenagers.While we are sometimes uncomfortable with these younger marriages, astudy comparing marriage ages shows that the Latter-day Saints were inline with the general population. Looking at 1850 census data, we findthat the national teenage marriage rate was higher than the teenagemarriage rate in Utah. And while early Mormons were criticized for thepractice of polygamy, there are no known attacks on the church basedon the ages of the girls getting married. You can read moreinformation about that here.

http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?s332

We had no lost boys like the FLDS church does. Young men were not cast out to create an imbalance of men and women. You can read more on that topic and more on marriage age here

http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?s333

Another difference with the FLDS church is their idea that more wives equals a greater chance of exaltation. While our critics like to claim we believed that, Brigham Young stated quite clearly that not everyone would, or should, practice plural marriage. Several members of church leadership--including apostles--were not polygamists. Some of Brigham's more controversial statements, when read in context, seem to use plural marriage as an example to focus on the idea of being willing to follow God rather than whether or not you actually practiced plural marriage. If plural marriage were required forheaven, why did some members of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles, our top leadership group, not practice it?

If you would like to read more about fundamentalist Mormonism, I recommend the book "Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto" by Brian C. Hales.

http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?s334

You can also find more information on the Internet about the FLDS church and other fundamentalist groups here, in Hales' website:

http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?s335

There are many differences between the LDS and FLDS churches, and except in very superficial ways, the FLDS church does not look like either the current LDS church nor the LDS church of the 19th century. The LDS church has issued a press release and video highlighting some of the differences between the LDS and FLDS faiths. You can listen to Elder Quentin L. Cook speak on the subject here:

http://www.fairlds.org/cgi-bin/site.pl?s336

I am both hopeful and confident that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will continue to become better known, better understood, and better appreciated for the dedication of its members to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

--Scott Gordon President

Is there Scientific Proof of the Book of Mormon?

I cannot tell you how many times I have received this same question. As well as the kind words that Elder Ballard has mentioned here in this You Tube Video; I would caution those that ask this question to judge the Bible on the same standard from an Athiestic point of view. Can one PROVE without a shadow of doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, and accended to his father. A book unto itself cannot prove anything. It is ones faith in the accuracy of that information as testified by the Holy Ghost.

If We Can't Laugh At Ourselves, We Have No Humor

Most people are aware there is a Mormon running for President. I thought this might be a humorous way to look at ourselves while in the public spotlight. Somtimes one needs to reflect inward and laugh with the crowd.

Top Ten Reasons to Vote for a Mormon President

10) The National Cathedral could be renamed the National Tabernacle.

9) NASA could commission a satellite to "hie to Kolob".

8) The Secret Service could be renamed the Sacred Service.

7) All official government prayers could include the phrase "that we all can get home safely".

6) Napoleon Dynamite could get someone other than Pedro elected.

5) The President could not only explain things in Layman's terms, but also in Lemuel's terms.

4) The President could issue pardons in exchange for 100% home teaching.

3) Not only could he pronounce "Nuclear" but also "Mahonri, Moriancumer" and "Maher Shalal Hash Baz".

2) At his inauguration he would swear on the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly".

1) Finally a first family large enough to fill up the White House.

Anti Mormon - Walter Ralston Martin - Examining the Facts

"Doctor" Walter R. Martin was the founder and director of the Christian Research Institute in San Juan Capistrano, California. His books The Maze of Mormonism and The Kingdom of the Cults" have been common sources for sectarian world to turn to when seeking knowledge about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Martin's books appear well documented, and his type of writing was bombastic in exposing the "serious threats" of the Mormon Church to Christian society, making very entertaining and compelling reading until you go beneath the surface and investigate his claims and credentials. I have provided a sample below.

Phony Academic Credentials

"Doctor" Walter Martin's only doctorate was from a non accredited correspondence school in Southern California, one step above a degree mill. He also claimed a master's degree in Comparative Religion. However, for years prior to getting his "doctorate," Walter Martin was referring to himself as "Doctor" On both of his most popular books, Martin claimed to have four degrees. His "degrees" are from Stony Brook School [a high school!], Adelphi University [where he attended one semester], Biblical Seminary of New York [where he attended a summer session], and New York University [where he received a master's in Philosophy, not Comparative Religion, as he claimed]. In short "Doctor" Martin did not hold a valid doctorate in anything.

False Ministerial Credentials

Walter Martin commonly claimed to be an ordained Baptist Minister of the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptists Convention. However, Martin's only valid ordination was revoked in 1953. Yet, in 1973 court documents relating to his second divorce, Martin claimed, under oath, to be "an ordained Minister of the American Baptist Convention in good standing"[1]. In a letter from the Executive Director of the American Baptist Churches, USA, Reverend Linda C. Spoolstra stated: "Walter Ralston Martin is not listed in the American Baptist Churches' Professional Registry, nor is he listed in our Directory of Professional Church Leaders. This means that he has no standing in our denomination." In a letter from the Southern Baptist Agency, Barbara Denman wrote: "We have searched our . . . personnel records for the name of Walter Martin, but are unable to come up with anything. Evidently, he is not Southern Baptist, nor is he ordained."

Walter Martin's False Genealogy"

Walter Martin repeatedly claimed in his book , in his lectures, and on radio shows that he was a descendant of early Mormon Leader Brigham Young. In a taped lecture in 1977, he made this statement to his audience:

Wayne Cowdery and I are very close because he is a descendant of Oliver
Cowdery, who allegedly wrote down the Book of Mormon that Joseph dictated.
he is now a reborn Christian. I am a descendant of Brigham Young---
successor to Joseph Smith, ruler of the Latter-day Saints Church ---- a born
again Christian.

Walter Martin was not a descendant of Brigham Young. That was proven in a public setting in 1984, whereupon Martin changed his claim. He then said he was related to one of Brigham's brothers--- also a false claim. [As it turns out, Wayne Cowdery was not a descendant of Oliver Cowdery's only surviving child, a daughter, died childless!]

Martin's "Sloppy Scholarship"

Martin claimed to be an authority on the doctrines and the finances of the LDS Church. In the preface of his book The Maze of Mormonism, he stated: "The facts herein contained must be sound and reliable if the conclusions arrived at are to be considered valid. . . . I have made every effort to accomplish this goal of accuracy."[2]

However, inside the text of his book, Martin proves to be pathetically inaccurate on every issue. For example, on pages 16-22 he illustrates "the Mormon threat," by claiming that Mormons own or control major businesses in the U.S. and have enormous wealth and holdings to create a position of power. Research into his claims has proven him wrong. [3]

Martin depended on the sensationalism of his claims to carry the day for him. the information he lied about is readily available from the public corporations involved or from widely published industry statistics. Martin clearly assumed that his adherents would not check his references or dispute his conclusions.

Martin's Christian Research Institute [CRI] once a small rented suite in a modest business complex, hawed a $12,000,000 in gross income from 1979 to 1982, and was a "religious" organization, CRI paid no taxes. It is a well funded, and growing institution benefiting Martin's pocketbook. Further, in a 1985 Newsweek article, Martin's book The Kingdom and the Cults was listed among the most popular religious books of the day. At that point it had sold 319350 copies at $14.95 --- that's $4,774,282 in gross income. Obviously, Martin's attack on the Church was profitable for him.

----

[1] Brown and Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive [Mesa, Ariz.: Borwnsworth Publishing, 1986], 3:8

[2] Walter R. Martin, The Maze of Mormonism [Grand Rapids, Mich, : Zondervan Publishing House, 1962], 12

[3] Brown and Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive [Mesa, Ariz.: Borwnsworth Publishing, 1986], 3:135-78

Is Lucifer the Brother of Jesus?

The above statement is often used by anti-Mormon detractors in an effort to make the LDS Church appear to be a non-Christian sect or cult. But it serves to highlight a significant difference between Bible doctrine and the views of "orthodox Christians." The Bible clearly indicates that God the Father is the father of the spirits of all mankind, and that both Jesus and Lucifer are also among his sons. "Orthodox Christians" do not accept this Biblical doctrine.

In contrast, Lauer-day Saints believe Jesus, Lucifer and all mankind have a common Heavenly Father. The Bible clearly teaches that all men and women who have ever lived in heaven and on earth are the spirit offspring of our eternal Heavenly Father. Paul taught, "For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device" (Acts 17:28,29).

We see in Luke 3:38 that Adam is a son of God. It is only logical that we, who are descended from him, are members of the same family. The author of Hebrews affirms the brotherhood of all men by stating that we are to be "in subjection unto the Father of Spirits" (Heb. 12:9, see Num. 16:22). The book of I John gives account of our relationship to the Father: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God" (1 John 3:2). Paul speaks of "one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:6).

We learn from the book of Job that "there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them" (Job 1:6). Job makes it clear that as one of the Sons of God, Satan was recognized by the Lord in their presence (Job 1:7- 12,2:1-6). He fell from his heavenly abode, (Luke 10:18, Rev. 12:7-9, Isa. 14:12-14), but that does not negate that he was once a literal "spirit" offspring or child of God. These scriptures clearly show that all of us are offspring of God, our Heavenly Father--including those children who rebelled and followed Satan.

The critic will point to Colossians 1:16 as a prooftext that Jesus is the creator of all things in Heaven and earth and therefore cannot be Lucifer's brother. Such an erroneous interpretation is in sharp contradiction to the passages cited above and others on the subject. The scriptures are clear as to Jesus' creative role and his obedience to his Father's will, but Paul's point in Colossians is not to assert that God the Father did not have spirit children, but rather to emphasize the preeminence of Jesus as he did the will of the Father (v. 18).

That Jesus had a brother named Lucifer is not a new idea to Christians. Catholic writer Giovanni Papini quotes Lactantius, a Third Century Christian writer, from his apologetic work, Divinac Institutines 11.9:

Before creating the world, God produced a spirit like himself replete with the virtues of the Father. Later He made another, in whom the mark of divine origin was erased, because this one was besmirched by the poison of jealousy and turned therefore from good to evil. He was jealous of his older brother who, remaining united with the Father, insured his affection unto himself. This being who from good became bad is called devil by the Greeks.

Papini concludes that, "According to Lactantius, Lucifer would have been nothing less than the brother of the logos, of the word, ie. of the second person of the trinity" (Giovanni Papini, The Devil, p. 81).

Lucifer, or Satan of the Old and New Testaments, initially was in heaven but fell and took one third of the Hosts of Heaven with him (Isa. 14:12, Rev. 12:9). His fall from heaven was confirmed by the Savior (Luke 10:18). The Devil and his angels are most anxious to inhabit the bodies of mortals (Lk. 8:2633; Matt. 9:32). All the Savior did, has done and will do, is the antithesis of Lucifer, but both Jesus and Satan are offspring of God the Father, as are all members of the human family.