FLDS Beliefs and Practices

2010-03-22 11:09:07

By Donald Richter

In an affidavit accompanying the motion to dismiss bigamy charges against Mike Emack, Dr. John Walsh undertakes “to provide the Court with background information concerning the FLDS Church generally, and specifically the normative religious and cultural beliefs and practices of faithful FLDS practitioners.”

Dr. Walsh has no affiliation with either the FLDS Church or the LDS Church. He is, however, an eminent religious scholar with highly impressive academic credentials. He holds a Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Wales, a master’s degree from the Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies in Chicago, has done post-doctoral study at the University of Saint Thomas Graduate School of Theology in Houston, and has taken 90 semester hours in Mormon religion from Arizona State University and Brigham Young University. In addition, he has made an intensive study of the FLDS people for almost twenty years, reading hundreds of books on their beliefs and conducting several personal interviews. He served as an expert witness at the 14-day custody hearing for the YFZ children in April of 2008 and at the Allan Keate trial in December of 2009.

Much of what Dr. Walsh has to say will not set well with members of the mainstream LDS Church. He indicates very clearly that as believers in the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, the FLDS people are entitled to refer to themselves as “Mormons.” In spite of a strenuous PR campaign by the LDS Church to disavow any connection with the FLDS Church, he points out that the two are closer to each other in beliefs and practices than either one is to any other Christian denomination, having a common background, using the same sacred texts, and sharing 95 percent common beliefs and 75 percent common practices.

Dr. Walsh traces the history of the adoption of plural marriage as a tenet of the LDS Church and its subsequent abandonment as a result of government prosecution and the quest for statehood and world acceptance. He observes that for several decades after the adoption of the Woodruff Manifesto in 1890, plural marriage continued to be practiced by many members and leaders of the LDS Church, including the apostles. The eventual shift in attitude of the LDS Church and the aggressive excommunication of those continuing the practice of plural marriage resulted in the split between the mainstream LDS Church and the FLDS. Summarizing the theological underpinnings of this separation, Dr. Walsh observes, “As strong religious fundamentalists, the FLDS are very hesitant to alter founding Mormon beliefs and practices. In contrast, because of their acceptance of religious liberalism, the LDS have adopted modernity and evolved considerably over the last eighty years....By faithfully fulfilling the commandments from the Lord to Joseph Smith, the FLDS believe that their Church is the true continuation of Joseph Smith’s prophetic authority and divine mandate.”

The FLDS people believe that the sealings of women to men under legitimate Priesthood authority are eternal and use the term “celestial marriage” to designate these sealings. After discussing some of the reasons that the FLDS people believe the faithful practice of “celestial marriage” essential to achieving the highest exaltation in the afterlife, Dr. Walsh stresses the fact that by engaging in “celestial marriage” the FLDS do not intend to create a legal marriage under the laws of Texas any more than the Roman Catholic Church intends to create a legal marriage when a woman becomes a nun and is “married” to Christ.

“Worldwide, monogamy is the minority lifestyle.” Dr. Walsh observes that “[t]he modern Western Christian world is nearly alone in rejection of polygamy as a legitimate form of marriage.” He points out that all of the major world religions accept polygamy, the only exception being mainstream Christianity insofar as it rejects the Old Testament. Indeed, polygamy is characteristic of 75 percent of the world’s societies. This is not to say that 75 percent of the people are polygamists but that most societies give the practice legal recognition.

Dr. Walsh also considers nineteenth-century and current attitudes toward polygamy and refutes the idea that polygamy either enslaves women or endangers children. He points out that during the time the LDS Church practiced plural marriage, few plural wives ever attempted to “escape” their lifestyle. Mormon women were among the first granted suffrage and consistently voted to maintain their local institutions. In addition they held rallies in favor of polygamy and conducted public relations tours. He also observes that nineteenth-century legislation against polygamy was employed in a discriminatory manner. Indian polygamy was tolerated while “Mormon polygamy served as a proxy for the destruction of the Mormon empire in the West.”

Contemporary studies of nineteenth-century Mormon polygamy show “no reason to disfavor polygamy as a form of family life.” Dr. Walsh cites in particular the work of Jesse Embry, who made a careful review of prior polygamy research and conducted independent research of her own. She concluded that “[i]n both monogamous and polygamous families, husbands and wives needed to work together to overcome problems. Where extreme difficulties existed, they originated in personality differences—intensified by plural marriage but not caused by it.”

Ms. Embry agrees with the conclusion of Ida Walser Jackson, an interviewee: “Not all the families got along. It was the people though and not the institution. It was the way the man handled it a lot and the way the women themselves accepted it. When selfishness crept in, they couldn’t live it properly. There was jealousy among some, but many of them just got along beautifully.”

“Other studies of nineteenth century plural marriage,” Dr. Walsh continues, “indicate that ‘Mormon polygamy neither caused nor could cause the degradation of women and children or the subversion of democracy.’” “Current social surveys made by legal scholars of plural marriage and other similar lifestyles,” he says, “observe that children fare similarly well in plural marriage households as in nuclear family households.” “The key to a happy, well-adjusted child,” one such study concluded, “seems to be parental love, concern and respect rather than the lifestyle in which one is raised.”

Dr. Walsh references studies made following Arizona’s 1953 raid on Short Creek that found no negative reports of conditions. One master’s thesis study concluded, “[t]he children of Short Creek are not different than children elsewhere.”

He notes that in contemporary society there “is no uniform mode of family life” and that although the “laws are not enforced against those practicing new life-styles,” they “are asserted as weapons…against those living a traditional, religious-based lifestyle.”

Dr. Walsh emphasizes that no one is forced into Mormon polygamy. The doctrine of agency is stronger in Mormonism than in either philosophical Judaism or traditional Christianity. He acknowledges that “many people have left Mormonism over this principle because it simply did not work for those individuals.” “But for many others,” he concludes, “the principle has given them happiness in this life and hope for happiness in the life to come.”

Click HERE to view the Affidavit

Printer Friendly Version

Comments