Glenn Beck's Shockingly Absurd Retelling Of Polygamy History...

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting.

Am I under obligation to respond to each and every part of a post, assuming I choose to respond to it at all?

 

Who made that rule?

[Scott Lloyd]

I do not think anyone here hasn't heard "lack of men" as the justification for polygamy stated in an official Church setting or formal teaching setting (this is too account for missionary discussions).

The double negative here is confusing to me.

 

If we're expected to take it as it is written (and I'm wondering if it was worded erroneously) I give myself as an example of one who hasn't heard that in an "official or formal teaching" setting.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

I am free to define "shockingly absurd" because I am the one who made the statement, I know my intent. You do not, you are not at liberty to define what I meant by my words.

 

I am glad you agree with my stated position that you are free to define for yourself, or clarify your meaning, however you see fit.

 

And since I didn't suggest anything to the contrary (you are flailing where there is no challenge), I am glad you agree with my tacit belief that it is not my position to define the meaning for you.

 

Now, hopefully on to matters that ought go without saying.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Soooo.... are you going to actually answer the questions?

 

In due time for one or two of the questions. Judge Judy is on, and that takes preference.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No one has demonstrated that Glenn has not looked into this. For starters no one has yet to even offer up a point by point post of what was factually wrong.

"122 years ago they stopped it (referring to 1890)"

-Factually incorrect

Paraphrase: "Why could you practice polygamy? ...The reason Mormons practiced it for a very small window in the 1800's was because people were dying."

-Factually incorrect. Polygamy was practiced from 1835 until the end of the century. This is not a very small window in the 1800's. It was not instituted because people were dying.

Mormons were driven out of New York, Ohio, Kirkland, Missouri and Illinois.

-Mormons were not driven from New York. Per lds.org, the principle of Plural Marriage was revealed to Joseph in 1831 well before the mass persecution and exodus from other areas.

10000 Mormons exterminated or Driven from the state. They're [the mobs] slaughtering... Their husbands are dead. [speaking of the Extermination Order]

-I don't want to belittle the suffering of the saints in Missouri. They went through horrible trials and tribulation. I'm sure many died of exposure, but the only Mormons killed in Missouri after the extermination order were 15 men and two boys at Hauns mill. Even there, most historians don't think the mob knew of the Extermination Order.

"Most of the men were dead (speaking of the Nauvoo exodus period and of the persecution at Nauvoo)."

-factually untrue.

"They believed so deeply in this country that they served" (Speaking of Mormon Batallion)

-Factually incorrect. The decision was much more practical than that. The saints needed the money to support their families as they moved across the plains.

"So one reason for polygamy was there weren't a lot of dudes left"

Polygamy was revealed before the persecution began. 25 mormon men and boys were killed as part of the persecution of Saints in those early days. Per this article study plural marriage in southern Utah it states "Virtually none of the age-groups above nineteen had a surplus of females; if anything, men slightly outnumbered women." (article does note that a surplus of unmarried non-mormon men might have skewed this, however it would be similar to today where we still see higher activity rates among women, but do not have polygamy.

"We need to repopulate (after being exterminated)"

Only 25 mormons were exterminated. More died on the plains, but no evidence has been put forward that says many more men died than women.

"Once they came to Utah and they knew they were secure, polygamy stopped"

Polygamy stopped only when forced by the US goverment under threat of complete dissolution of the church.

"It didn't exist before the persecution and it didn't exist after the persecution"

JS new about it as early as 1831. Much of the Utah persecution was a direct result of polygamy and stopped when Mormon's stopped practicing it.

"And in total only 5 percent of the mormons practiced polygamy"

Per LDS.org, 25-30% of mormons lived in polygamous households. (possibly comparing slightly different things).

 

"You were assigned... Brother Beck, widow school Marm"

-This might have been true in some cases, but the referenced article states: "In most of the plural families listed in appendix A, the latest wife was at least ten to twenty years younger than the first, a trend that supports the importance of the teenage female population in making the high prevalence of Mormon polygamy possible, as Bitton and Lambson have already demonstrated.65"

 

Edited April 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Here is a list of returns from a search of lds.org, some of which identify media sources that have been less than accurate or clear with regard to differentiating between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and schismatic groups that practice polygamy today.

 

Granted, these are a few years old. Perhaps such instances are less common today. That would be welcome news if true. But if so, I submit that it has come about at least in part because the Church has been careful to demand accountability from the mass media on this point.

Just because the church says "fundamentalist Mormons" don't exist doesn't mean they don't. I'd say that based on a reference to "fundamentalist Mormons" it would be shockingly absurd to conclude "The media would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers." If that was the case why did they include the "fundamentalist" portion?

 

Edit see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_fundamentalism

Edited April 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

Just because the church says "fundamentalist Mormons" don't exist doesn't mean they don't. I'd say that based on a reference to "fundamentalist Mormons" it would be shockingly absurd to conclude "The media would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers." If that was the case why did they include the "fundamentalist" portion?

 

Edit see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_fundamentalism

To a less-than-well-informed individual, a term like "fundamentalist Mormon" is apt to give the false impression that there is some formal or official connection between these apostate groups and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which, of course, there is none.

 

A responsible journalist would avoid conveying such a false impression, either explicitly or implicitly.

 

And I say that as a professional journalist.

 

But you seem to have shifted your position from a denial that the media are careless with their reporting on this matter to being an apologist for media who are careless in that respect.

 

Your Wikipedia reference is not useful, because typically, a person understands a term like fundamenalist differently from the way it is used in connection with Mormonism. For example, the fundamentalist movement in Protestantism does not imply an apostate movement from the main body, as is certainly the case with those who self-identify or who are labeled by others as "fundamentalist Mormons."

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

I suppose that raises the question of to what extent is the Church to be held accountable for idle chatter.

 

Again, Church Correlation exists to keep the doctrine pure and information accurate as it is promulgated in official lesson manuals, periodicals and other communications. I daresay it is rather more difficult to control individuals who cannot or will not exercise good judgment in what they say.

 

If you have a solution that is more effective than what has been tried up to now, I would be very interested to hear it.

I suspect an information vacuum is a prime breeding ground for "idle chatter".  Were there has been no clear or decisive statement from the church, it's much easier and tempting to get imaginative.  In this regard I feel the church has made great strides in the past few years in opening its mouth about some of the more perplexing topics. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

To a less-than-well-informed individual, a term like "fundamentalist Mormon" is apt to give the false impression that there is some formal or official connection between these schismatic groups and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Which, of course, there is none.

 

A responsible journalist would avoid conveying such a false impression, either explicitly or implicitly.

 

And I say that as a professional journalist.

 

But you seem to have shifted your position from a denial that the media are careless with their reporting on this matter to being an apologist for media who are careless in that respect.

My position is the same. I think the statement that Glenn made is shocking absurd. His statement was "The media would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers."

 

Do you think this statement is true Scott? Yes or no?

 

What do members of Warren Jeff's sect call themselves? Are they members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or not? Do they consider themselves Mormon's or not? Why is applying the term fundamentalist mormon an indication that the media would love to paint every mormon just like Warren Jeffs? They don't even paint all fundamentalist mormons like Warren Jeffs.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

"122 years ago they stopped it (referring to 1890)"

-Factually incorrect

Paraphrase: "Why could you practice polygamy? ...The reason Mormons practiced it for a very small window in the 1800's was because people were dying."

-Factually incorrect. Polygamy was practiced from 1835 until the end of the century. This is not a very small window in the 1800's. It was not instituted because people were dying.

Mormons were driven out of New York, Ohio, Kirkland, Missouri and Illinois.

-Mormons were not driven from New York. Per lds.org, the principle of Plural Marriage was revealed to Joseph in 1831 well before the mass persecution and exodus from other areas.

10000 Mormons exterminated or Driven from the state. They're [the mobs] slaughtering... Their husbands are dead. [speaking of the Extermination Order]

-I don't want to belittle the suffering of the saints in Missouri. They went through horrible trials and tribulation. I'm sure many died of exposure, but the only Mormons killed in Missouri after the extermination order were 15 men and two boys at Hauns mill. Even there, most historians don't think the mob knew of the Extermination Order.

"Most of the men were dead (speaking of the Nauvoo exodus period and of the persecution at Nauvoo)."

-factually untrue.

"They believed so deeply in this country that they served" (Speaking of Mormon Batallion)

-Factually incorrect. The decision was much more practical than that. The saints needed the money to support their families as they moved across the plains.

"So one reason for polygamy was there weren't a lot of dudes left"

Polygamy was revealed before the persecution began. 25 mormon men and boys were killed as part of the persecution of Saints in those early days. Per this article study plural marriage in southern Utah it states "Virtually none of the age-groups above nineteen had a surplus of females; if anything, men slightly outnumbered women." (article does note that a surplus of unmarried non-mormon men might have skewed this, however it would be similar to today where we still see higher activity rates among women, but do not have polygamy.

"We need to repopulate (after being exterminated)"

Only 25 mormons were exterminated. More died on the plains, but no evidence has been put forward that says many more men died than women.

"Once they came to Utah and they knew they were secure, polygamy stopped"

Polygamy stopped only when forced by the US goverment under threat of complete dissolution of the church.

"It didn't exist before the persecution and it didn't exist after the persecution"

JS new about it as early as 1831. Much of the Utah persecution was a direct result of polygamy and stopped when Mormon's stopped practicing it.

"And in total only 5 percent of the mormons practiced polygamy"

Per LDS.org, 25-30% of mormons lived in polygamous households. (possibly comparing slightly different things).

 

"You were assigned... Brother Beck, widow school Marm"

-This might have been true in some cases, but the referenced article states: "In most of the plural families listed in appendix A, the latest wife was at least ten to twenty years younger than the first, a trend that supports the importance of the teenage female population in making the high prevalence of Mormon polygamy possible, as Bitton and Lambson have already demonstrated.65"

 

 

That.

PS.... Thank you SU.... I have been so out of the polygamy discussion/argument loop for so long I don't have links and info. and things anymore.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I suspect an information vacuum is a prime breeding ground for "idle chatter". Were there has been no clear or decisive statement from the church, it's much easier and tempting to get imaginative. In this regard I feel the church has made great strides in the past few years in opening its mouth about some of the more perplexing topics.

It seems absurd to me to claim that the church has no responsibility to correct the false beliefs many to most of its members have regarding polygamy, but if the media doesn't adapt the church's media guide in reference to "fundamentalist" Mormons (while disregarding how flds refer to themselves) it is proof that they love to portray every believing mormon to be just like Warren Jeff's.

[Scott Lloyd]

My position is the same. I think the statement that Glenn made is shocking absurd. His statement was "The media would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers."

 

Do you think this statement is true Scott? Yes or no?

 

What do members of Warren Jeff's sect call themselves? Are they members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or not? Do they consider themselves Mormon's or not? Why is applying the term fundamentalist mormon an indication that the media would love to paint every mormon just like Warren Jeffs? They don't even paint all fundamentalist mormons like Warren Jeffs.

I added this to my post (perhaps you missed it):

 

Your Wikipedia reference is not useful, because typically, a person understands a term like fundamenalist differently from the way it is used in connection with Mormonism. For example, the fundamentalist movement in Protestantism does not imply an apostate movement from the main body, as is certainly the case with those who self-identify or who are labeled by others as "fundamentalist Mormons."

In response to your question, I think Glen overstated the matter.

 

I don't agree that the media "would love nothing more" to convey the false impression. I think it closer to the truth that some (not all) of the media practitioners are irresponsible and careless in this respect. That is, they are apathetic about whether or not their consumers are left with an accurate understanding. As a professional, I would call that gross negligence.

 

Again, perhaps things have changed for the better in more recent years. I certainly hope this is the case.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Relevance?

 

Most people here who use screen names have secret IRL identities -- and I daresay most of them would prefer to keep it that way.

 

The presence of or lack there of screen names here is indicative of nothing more than personal preference.

[JLHPROF]

"122 years ago they stopped it (referring to 1890)"

-Factually incorrect

Paraphrase: "Why could you practice polygamy? ...The reason Mormons practiced it for a very small window in the 1800's was because people were dying."

-Factually incorrect. Polygamy was practiced from 1835 until the end of the century. This is not a very small window in the 1800's. It was not instituted because people were dying.

Mormons were driven out of New York, Ohio, Kirkland, Missouri and Illinois.

-Mormons were not driven from New York. Per lds.org, the principle of Plural Marriage was revealed to Joseph in 1831 well before the mass persecution and exodus from other areas.

10000 Mormons exterminated or Driven from the state. They're [the mobs] slaughtering... Their husbands are dead. [speaking of the Extermination Order]

-I don't want to belittle the suffering of the saints in Missouri. They went through horrible trials and tribulation. I'm sure many died of exposure, but the only Mormons killed in Missouri after the extermination order were 15 men and two boys at Hauns mill. Even there, most historians don't think the mob knew of the Extermination Order.

"Most of the men were dead (speaking of the Nauvoo exodus period and of the persecution at Nauvoo)."

-factually untrue.

"They believed so deeply in this country that they served" (Speaking of Mormon Batallion)

-Factually incorrect. The decision was much more practical than that. The saints needed the money to support their families as they moved across the plains.

"So one reason for polygamy was there weren't a lot of dudes left"

Polygamy was revealed before the persecution began. 25 mormon men and boys were killed as part of the persecution of Saints in those early days. Per this article study plural marriage in southern Utah it states "Virtually none of the age-groups above nineteen had a surplus of females; if anything, men slightly outnumbered women." (article does note that a surplus of unmarried non-mormon men might have skewed this, however it would be similar to today where we still see higher activity rates among women, but do not have polygamy.

"We need to repopulate (after being exterminated)"

Only 25 mormons were exterminated. More died on the plains, but no evidence has been put forward that says many more men died than women.

"Once they came to Utah and they knew they were secure, polygamy stopped"

Polygamy stopped only when forced by the US goverment under threat of complete dissolution of the church.

"It didn't exist before the persecution and it didn't exist after the persecution"

JS new about it as early as 1831. Much of the Utah persecution was a direct result of polygamy and stopped when Mormon's stopped practicing it.

"And in total only 5 percent of the mormons practiced polygamy"

Per LDS.org, 25-30% of mormons lived in polygamous households. (possibly comparing slightly different things).

 

"You were assigned... Brother Beck, widow school Marm"

-This might have been true in some cases, but the referenced article states: "In most of the plural families listed in appendix A, the latest wife was at least ten to twenty years younger than the first, a trend that supports the importance of the teenage female population in making the high prevalence of Mormon polygamy possible, as Bitton and Lambson have already demonstrated.65"

 

 

Excellent.  This exactly.

Although I have to say again, did Glen Beck state any of these factually inaccurate that we haven't heard in our own wards.  I have heard most of them whenever polygamy is brought up.

Other than making it in a public venue he really didn't state anything we hadn't heard before.  (But you would think he would check his facts before making public statements).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I added this to my post (perhaps you missed it):

Where you going to answer the questions posed to you? 

 

 

My position is the same. I think the statement that Glenn made is shocking absurd. His statement was "The media would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers."

 

Do you think this statement is true Scott? Yes or no?

 

What do members of Warren Jeff's sect call themselves? Are they members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or not? Do they consider themselves Mormon's or not? Why is applying the term fundamentalist mormon an indication that the media would love to paint every mormon just like Warren Jeffs? They don't even paint all fundamentalist mormons like Warren Jeffs.

 

Given that FLDS members consider themselves Mormon, I think it is wonderful the media refers to them as Fundamentalist mormons. Why should the media favor our language over theirs? Why does it show a desire to paint us the same as Warren Jeff's if they don't?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Excellent.  This exactly.

Although I have to say again, did Glen Beck state any of these factually inaccurate that we haven't heard in our own wards.  I have heard most of them whenever polygamy is brought up.

Other than making it in a public venue he really didn't state anything we hadn't heard before.  (But you would think he would check his facts before making public statements).

I agree. As a middle of the road kind of guy politically, I cringe at Beck just as much as I cringe at Harry Reid. I'd love to attend a fireside with either of them though and listen to their testimony. I don't think Glenn Beck is evil and I don't think he is intentionally lying. I just think he is misinformed (about this and a number of other issues, but can't go political).

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems absurd to me to claim that the church has no responsibility to correct the false beliefs many to most of its members have regarding polygamy, ...

There has been an effort in that regard. But I don't concede your "many-to-most" claim.

[Scott Lloyd]

Where you going to answer the questions posed to you? 

 

I did. Check my post again.

[Scott Lloyd]

The presence of or lack there of screen names here is indicative of nothing more than personal preference.

You are neglecting my point that making irresponsible statements is more convenient when one doesn't have to back it up with one's actual identity. Again, your point about Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens is irrelevant to this point.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Given that FLDS members consider themselves Mormon, I think it is wonderful the media refers to them as Fundamentalist mormons. Why should the media favor our language over theirs?

For the reason I already gave. Without further explanation, in the minds of the typical consumer of mass media, it conveys a false impression. Using the label without explanatory content is lazy at best and arguably deceptive, even malicious.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. As a middle of the road kind of guy politically, I cringe at Beck just as much as I cringe at Harry Reid. I'd love to attend a fireside with either of them though and listen to their testimony. I don't think Glenn Beck is evil and I don't think he is intentionally lying. I just think he is misinformed (about this and a number of other issues, but can't go political).

Perhaps you and I are not so far apart on this matter.

 

I just think there has been some unseemly nastiness on this thread and, to reiterate, at least part of it has been driven by antipathy for Beck's politics.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I added this to my post (perhaps you missed it):

 

In response to your question, I think Glen overstated the matter.

 

I don't agree that the media "would love nothing more" to convey the false impression. I think it closer to the truth that some (not all) of the media practitioners are irresponsible and careless in this respect. That is, they are apathetic about whether or not their consumers are left with an accurate understanding. As a professional, I would call that gross negligence.

 

Again, perhaps things have changed for the better in more recent years. I certainly hope this is the case.

 

Thank you. I did miss that. I don't know that I would call it "gross negligence" more a difference of opinion (splitting the difference between our position and the FLDS position). Based on my recent article survey, about half the articles did not make the distinction that you would like to see (i.e. they called them "fundamentalist" mormons), so per your definition, they are not any better.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank you. I did miss that. I don't know that I would call it "gross negligence" more a difference of opinion (splitting the difference between our position and the FLDS position). Based on my recent article survey, about half the articles did not make the distinction that you would like to see (i.e. they called them "fundamentalist" mormons), so per your definition, they are not any better.

I hope you are beginning to see that it is a fundamental responsibility of a journalist to convey accurate understanding. Using correct-but-misleading terms and not providing a clarifying explanation amounts to a failure in this respect.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

For the reason I already gave. Without further explanation, in the minds of the typical consumer of mass media, it conveys a false impression. Using the label without explanatory content is lazy at best and arguably deceptive, even malicious.

 

Why don't you use the same strong language on Beck then? He is in the media no?

 

Edited to add - I certainly don't assume either to be malicious, but certainly if one is the other is as well?

Edited April 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Point of Clarification:

I wasn't saying that he made up things that none had ever heard or taught before.

I was objecting to the bravado and arrogance in which he repeated them. Also, I was surprised he was repeating them- because I saw LDS members acknowledging the misinformation years ago. I didn't know somebody as reasonably knowledgeable as Beck wouldn't know the facts from folklore.