The FLDS & Apostasy

In recent weeks, many of us have watched with great interest as events have unfolded at the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, Texas. While watching the many news stories, it was easy to become deeply concerned about the treatment of women and children at the ranch and within the Fundamentalist LDS Church as a whole. On the other hand, I have also been concerned about the rights of the parents and children. The whole saga is deeply disturbing and it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

A few months ago I read a book titled Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto by Brian C. Hales. It is a history of those who continued to practice plural marriage after President Woodruff’s manifesto declaring an end to the practice within the Church. It is a fascinating read about those individuals and groups who believed that President Woodruff was wrong and then continued the practice. As I progressed into this history and read about how these groups functioned, I felt impressed that I was reading a study on the fruits of apostasy.

I have been fascinated by some of the video coming out of the FLDS story, particularly those scenes showing the homes on the ranch. In a scene or two, pictures of the FLDS presidents were shown on the wall. The pictures progressed in the following order: Warren Jeffs (apparently they still think of him as their prophet), Rulon Jeffs, Leroy Johnson, John Barlow, Lorin Woolley, and John Woolley. The pictures continued right to left with John Taylor, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith. In other places, only the picture of Warren Jeffs was visible. Hanging pictures of the prophets in one’s home is not unusual. I have a picture above my desk of all the latter-day prophets. What I found unusual is that there were no pictures of the Savior. I looked carefully through multiple scenes both on television and the Internet. If you walk into a typical LDS home, you almost always find a picture of the Savior in a prominent location. I wondered if they should change the name of their church to the Fundamentalist Church of Warren Jeffs.

This past Friday, in my daily Book of Mormon reading, I read again about Alma’s mission to reclaim the apostate Zoramites (Alma 31). Within that chapter we learn how the Zoramites corrupted the true gospel. They built a tower, which was the only place where they could pray and worship. Alma tells us that after praying, “they returned to their homes, never speaking of their God again until they had assembled themselves together again to the holy stand, to offer up thanks after their manner” (Alma 31:23). Alma tells us that they failed to keep the Law of Moses and did pervert the ways of the Lord. We learn in Alma 32 that the poor among the Zoramites were cast out of their places of worship.

What happened to the Zoramites? They failed to give heed to priesthood authority and to obey the word of the Lord as it was given through his prophet. As a consequence, their faith was corrupted and they worshipped after the manner of their own desires.

What happened to the FLDS? Like the Zoramites, they failed to give heed to the duly constituted priesthood authority and disregarded the word of the Lord as given through his prophet. The FLDS, and other such polygamous groups, believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Yet they are will to be obedient to only one portion of that which the Prophet taught. The Lord, through Joseph Smith, revealed the pattern for succession in the presidency. These groups are fine with that process until it reaches Wilford Woodruff. Because President Woodruff stopped the practice of plural marriage, they believe that he no longer spoke for the Lord.

Like the Zoramites, these people fell into apostasy. Like the Zoramites, we see the fruits of their apostasy: unrighteous dominion, child brides, possible child abuse, children taken away from their parents, boys kicked out their homes and church.

In the Section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord issues a warning to all people that must be carried to the world by his disciples. If these people truly believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, they are unable to carry out this commission from the Lord because of their actions. Their fruits speak louder than any truth they might possess. In excerpts from President Woodruff’s addresses, attached to the end of the Manifesto, he indicates that if the Church had continued the practice of plural marriage, the work of the Church would have been unable to go forward, temples would have been confiscated, and the work for the dead would have ceased.

The work of preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth and doing saving ordinances for the dead has continued because President Woodruff heeded the Lord’s counsel. Since the days of President Woodruff millions have accepted the gospel and been blessed in innumerable ways. Since the days of President Woodruff, the work for tens of millions of the dead has been done in the temples. In the almost 120 years since issuance of the manifesto, only thousands have become part of the FLDS church or the other polygamous offshoot faiths. Little or no preaching to the world has been done. President Woodruff was inspired to cease the practice of plural marriage and time has confirmed the importance of issuing the proclamation.

Whose Church Is It Anyway?

Over the past year there have been numerous articles and blogs addressing the Church, its doctrine, practices, and people. Much of this is due to the Romney candidacy. I have taken an interest in following this discussion about the Church. As I have tracked threads from articles and blogs, I am sometimes led to the pages of those who are members of the Church, yet unhappy with its doctrines and/or practices, or some of those who have left the Church. I do not dwell on these pages for I find little constructive discussion.

I came across the blog of one individual who recently resigned his membership in the Church. He posted on his blog, “The 96 Theses: Constructive Suggestions for Improving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” I suppose he is trying to beat Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. Here are a few of his suggestions or criticisms:

• The Church should acknowledge that the “faith-promoting” history it has been teaching through its correlated materials is often misleading or false and the Church should present members with accurate and complete information about Church history. The Church should not teach through word or visual image things that are demonstrably false.
• The Church should sell its interest in KSL and other media ventures. The Church should not be in the media business.
• The Church shows disrespect toward women by withholding the priesthood from them. The Church should grant women the priesthood and the right to officiate in all the offices pertaining thereto.
• The Church shows disrespect toward homosexuals by supporting a constitutional amendment to prevent states from granting all the same legal rights and privileges to homosexual couples that married heterosexual couples enjoy.
• The Church shows disrespect for members whose spouses are not members of the Church or are disaffected with the Church by teaching that only couples sealed in the temple who maintain strict obedience to Church teachings and requirements will enjoy family relationships after death.
• The Church should clarify for its members that a “full and honest tithe” should be paid on one’s “surplus,” that is, on the amount of money one has left over after paying for taxes and necessary living expenses such as food, housing, clothing, utilities, and transportation.
• The Church should shift focus to humanitarian service missions rather than active proselyting missions.

I would love to discuss each of these challenges (and maybe I will at some future time), however all of these challenges and criticisms boil down to one single question: Whose church is it anyway? In his preface to the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord stated, “Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments” (D&C 1:17). Later on in the same revelation that Lord stated, “And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” (D&C 1:30).

The Lord has claimed this Church as his own. He called Joseph Smith to be his voice upon the earth. Through him, priesthood authority, the authority to act in God’s name, was given to men. An organization was revealed that would perpetuate God’s kingdom upon earth. If this is not the Lord’s church, then whose church is it? If it is not the Lord’s, why belong to it? Apparently, the writer of the 96 Theses does not believe it is the Lord’s church or he would not have resigned his membership. In which case, why the 96 Theses? Why try to reform something that is not what it claims to be?

One of my favorite missionary scriptures is found in Amos 3:7, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” If this is the Lord’s church, he will reveal his will through his prophet. The Church is not a democracy where we gather in a convention to discuss doctrines and practices and then vote to decide what to change or not change. They tried that at the Council of Nicea, which excluded the will of God, and ultimately led to the incredible fragmentation of Christianity.

Is the Church (meaning the membership) perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. This is the reason for the existence of the Church, “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:12-14).

As members, we can make suggestions for improving the effectiveness of this great work. Within the limited authority granted through our callings, and through inspiration, we can do that which helps us to succeed and carry out our responsibilities. In the 1930s, Harold B. Lee, then president of the Pioneer Stake, along with other stake leaders, came up with a welfare plan for their stake that was eventually adopted by the whole church. However, the acceptance of the plan at higher levels was subject to approval by the Brethren under the guidance of the Lord.

This is the Lord’s church. Changes as suggested by the writer of the 96 Theses are not the prerogative of the writer, myself, or even the entire body of the Church. Such changes in doctrine and practice must be approved by the Lord and revealed to “his servants the prophets.” It continues to amaze me that such individuals that have separated themselves from the Church even care whether it changes or not.

A final note. We all loved President Hinckley. I never met him personally, but he was my friend and counselor. I came to know that he was the Lord’s prophet. Upon his death, I felt the loss of my friend and prophet. Though I have admired President Monson over the years and cherished his counsel, I could not see him filling the great shoes of President Hinckley. Last evening I attended General Priesthood Meeting at our stake center. As I watched President Monson speak to the priesthood brethren assembled throughout the world, the spirit manifested to me that the mantle of the prophet has been moved and President Thomas S. Monson is the man bearing that mantle. There is a new prophet in town.