Hard to comment on this one. I have had doubts about that part of our history for years but no one can give a good explanation.

Just because former FLDS members used to be LDS members, doesn't mean that the FLDS sect has retained the old LDS ways.

The FLDS seems to have evolved into a cult-like entity that has drastically changed over the last 60 years. The leaders have been reduced from seven to one. Recent leaders have made bizarre and untrue pronouncements. Members seem to worship the current leader rather than Jesus Christ or even Joseph Smith. Whereas, other Christians and Mormons would have pictures of these two hanging in their homes, the FLDS members hang pictures of Warren Jeffs. The sect has become mean spirited. It has abandoned many of its boys and separated fathers from their families. Control, indoctrination and obedience have been stressed to the max. Some members have more recently moved into compounds surrounded by tall walls and guards. Rules change on the whim of one leader. Yesterday included sports, access to media and minimal dress rules. Today sports, toys, books, television and the color red are not permitted.

The FLDS sect is unlike anything ever seen on American soil.

The N.Y. Times gets a story disastrously wrong.

The real story here is that someone, somewhere continues to read the Times at all.

I say that as a former subscriber to the Times. I subscribed for several years until the Times decided to declare itself a member of the executive branch with full power to disclose national secrets recently. I have not picked up a copy of that paper since.

Perhaps when Times stock holders awake from their slumber and oust Pinch, there will be something of worth in the Times. At the moment, however, it is difficult to distinguish the quality found in the "gray lady" with that of your average blogger - only I fully expect bloggers to have an agenda, and bloggers at least admit to it. The Times, however, hides behind its pseudo-journalistic wall of obfuscation.

What would you expect from the New York Times? The current version of the New York Times is one of the most dishonest publications in the history of American journalism. No wonder their subscription rates are dropping and they are continually "blasted" by clear thinking and objective readers and other members of the media. I feel sorry for the casual reader that looks at an article in this paper and actually believes it - and this is true for news articles in addition to opinion/editorial pieces. It makes you wonder if they can even get the sports scores right. With so many choices for us to obtain information from, why would anyone choose the New York Times?

The New York Times knows they can get away with this kind of reckless, irresponsible form of journalism, if you want to call it journalism. All they have to do is hide behind their interpretation of the First Amendment and they can say and do, pretty much anything. But go after them? Forget about it!

The same is true with many critics of the LDS Church. People like Ed Decker have been writing inflammatory and disgusting works against the LDS Church for years, knowing full well if the LDS Church attempts any kind of lawsuit, all they have to do is cry "First Amendment" and they win.

This whole thing is nothing short of spitefulness on the part of the those who despise the LDS Church. The New York Times would like nothing more than to have the LDS Church come after them. That way, the LDS Church will be made out as the bullies, while the Times will be seen as "Champions of Free Speech."

What garbage!

Correct me if I'm worng, but I'm prety sure that the FLDS does not allow LDS into their church. There are other groups that follow polygamny that do.
(these LDS then are ex-LDS at that point).

So any connection with the church is severed and gone.

My great grandmother was the recent second wife of my great grandfather when the manifesto came out. She made the decision that if new plural marriages weren't being granted, she wanted out. Though pregnant, she divorced my great grandfather, married a previous sweetheart and raised my grandfather with a stepfather and half-brothers and sisters.

With the support of his mother, stepfather, and birth father, my grandfather served a mission to England, and remained faithful to the church throughout his life.

We from a distance have our questions, but these people were all intimately familiar with polygamy and had strong testimonies of the LDS Church. A testimony is an act of faith, and their faith is part of what enables me to take a leap of faith on this issue.

I also cancelled my Subscription to the New York Times ages ago. The Bias of their "news" is beyond the pale.

Some of the Church's objections are true, but some are not. Women did marry younger, for example. In most states such young marriages were still legal well into the 20th Century.

Was polygamy more about sex than revelation from God?

1) Many of Joseph Smith's 40-some wives were already married - to other members of the Church.

2) While mos polygamists had only a handful of wives, there was certainly a large accumulation of wives at the top of the Church hierarchy, with Heber C Kimball, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young all having 40 or more.

Mormons back then didn't have federal welfare to lean on to support their kids if they couldn't do so themselves, and they needed young men to help build "Zion," so they couldn't afford to drive them away.

The history of polygamy in the LDS Church is not as ugly as the FLDS example, but that does not make it perfect.

To Anonymous:
It is pretty easy for you to find out the true history of the period. There are volumes written about it. Take a little time and educate yourself.

As to the FLDS having ANY connection to the LDS Church, consider this:
The FLDS "Church" is nothing more than a blatant attempt by Satan to destroy the true Church. The LDS Church is the kingdom of God on earth, with Christ at its head. The FLDS is characterized by adultery, blasphemy, child abuse, lies and hypocricy. They are as different as Christ and Satan. That's not intolerance, it is simply the naked truth.

The official historian for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and ordained Seventy, has provided an exemplary "explanation."

Sadly, millions have read and believe Egan's hateful, dead wrong, and profoundly disrespectful venom disquised as an opinion "piece." Few will see the reasoned response from the church.

I love The New York Times, and know reporter Timothy Egan as one of the best in journalism. His most recent article was right on the money.

As a matter of fact, the coverage of the LDS Church in the New York Times has been incredibly positive, at least in the past nine years I have been reading it daily. I challenge the above NYTimes bashers to go to paper's webpage, type in "LDS" or "Mormon" in the search box, and then read the results. In the sports section of today's paper is this about a US Olympic contender:

In December 2005, Roach, a Mormon, went to see her bishop.
“This is not what I signed up for,” she said.

“This is exactly what you signed up for,” he replied. That message not only changed her outlook about [her autistic son], it changed her outlook about weight lifting."

Or read the major articles from last year about Mitt Romney's missionary work or about the Hill Cumorah pageant. I would be you would be hard pressed to find a newspaper outside of Utah that has given more positive coverage of the LDS Church in recent years than the New York Times.

An no, I don't work for the NYTimes!

Tap dance around this. The NYTimes was pretty close historically. Good reporting....it would never come from the Utah media.

I would love to and will comment on the stuff Egan said to the Times. It's all so wrong!! My 4th great grandmother is Patty Bartlett Sessions (known as the Mormon Midwife). And she always spoke up when she knew things were wrong. She worked and not just cooking and taking care of her husband either! I have read her journals and those of her daughter. So Egan has painted a picture that is so very wrong and misleading. There is absolutely no comparison to the FLDS Women to the 1800 Mormon women - ABSOLUTELY NONE! Except in his own imagination!

New York Times,
Keeping bigotry bright for a 2012 offensive against the Mormon candidate. They will lose if Mormons associate with their neighbors. That is the only way the average american will know that these articles are purposely deceitful.

The media sources and some people associated with this story continue to portray FLDS members as "former" LDS members. This is blatantly false.

It may be that former ancestors of FLDS members were LDS at one time, but that would have been over 75 years ago.

For the most part, LDS loves to hide their past. What part of the story is incorrect? Don't blame the Times for your past.

I am not a big fan of Spiro Agnew, former VP of the United States. However, I have always appreciated his description of some news media reporters as being "an effete corps of impudent snobs posing as intellectuals." That description fits the New York Times and Timothy Egan perfectly. Egan isn't interested in being a true scholar of past history. He merely wants to take a few fragments of history, place his own "politically correct" interpretion on them, and draw quantum conclusions in order to satisfy his own arrogant ego.

Blame the messenger, folks.

The perception IS there -- and you have no way of refuting it.

How would one know what 19th century Mormon polygny was like? I have been a member of the LDS church for 50 years and it has always been a non-issue. Was it part of God's plan or was it terrible abuse? Some historical openness from the church would help the cause of truth, no matter what was disclosed.

Any wonder why the NY Times is going under?

After settling in Nephi, John Rowoley, who had endured the Willie Handcart Company trials, married. That marriage was annuled two years later. Yes, he did marry again, and when he had to take his families to Mexico, one of his wives elected to stay in Utah.

Utah was the first state to give women the right to vote. Also, LDS women played a strong role in family and community matters. Utah women were much stronger than women elsewhere. They knew how to voice their opinions.

Besides, when a man is outnumbered by his wives, just how much can he dominate women in a frontier atmosphere?

The New York Times hasn't had much right for years, so why would you think they would know anything about The Church and its history.

The Church isn't going anywhere....you better get use to it being around and being an influence for good.

I just did some genealogy for the time period in question. I only wonder why all the marital records I saw had ages listed as : 23, 25, 21, 22, 23, 27 24, and etc. I saw pages and pages without even a single teenager. Now what age was Emma Smith when she married Joseph?

Perhaps the mirror doesn't reflect what you want to see but the truth and that is not always pretty.

All the Mormon stuff is happening. Could it be that Satan is trying to prevent the truth from getting out? Frist Huckie and his 'comments', then the FLDS, then the Pope, now this dude?

Sorry, the work will continue to go forward, inspite of the work to tear it down.

I am not Mormon.But have witnessed in the past year the compassionate help of our very small LDS church to help a friend of mine, who got taken by a contractor for all the money she had and than left with an unfinished house. Those man painted, hammered and spend untold hours to help her. Of course that came with a lot of Bible lessons and Mormon teachings and than pressure to have her baptized.She was almost ready to go through with it, just out of gratitude, when all of this FLDS stuff broke loose.She is so torn now, because personally she just so much appreciated the help of the Mormon man. I've tried to explain to there the difference between LDS and FLDS ( as I understand it), but the fear in her to get into something with still a lot of unknown, is still great. BTW, we live close to the island where we had a Mormon King Strang, so this community is bit skewed when it comes to Mormon history.

It appears that Anonymous and Timothy Egan attended the same twilight zone school of historiography where homework was not a high priority.

It is in the history books {History of the Church} Oh!! Has that been banned? It is also in the Journals of Discourse which you can see and read right on the internet.

I can't believe how sensitive the mormon church is to any spin but their own.
Yes, the church has to the Nth degree ran away and disavowed the FLDS. Every argument presented with the zeal of a good injury lawyer.
But the support for the FLDS here in Utah, in the papers and forums, speaks volumes to the contrary. You still can't spell FLDS without LDS.

A hundred years ago do-gooders from back East came out to Salt Lake to "rescue" these oppressed Mormon women.
They built a shelter home over on First South, got the word out, and ONE WOMAN showed up to get help.
She turned out to be a prostitute, not a plural wife!
The NYT article proves they still don't get it.

I break with many of you here because I am a conservative who finds value in many NY Times articles, especially about human rights issues and international reporting (sorely missing in almost all US news outlets).

However, I find the laziness of our US journalists with regard to the LDS faith which is quite accessible to be extremely appalling.

How can we trust them to help us understand Muslims if they can't get the story right about a religion in their own backyard??

Let's not forget Lawrence ODonnell. Remember the things he said about the Mormon faith when Mitt was still a candidate.ODonnell is just as venomous toward other Christians as well.

Actually, Emma was 22 when she married Joseph. He was 21.

I bet the NY Times and Egan are really hurt by this article. Does this paper get read outside the State of Utah? Maybe.

Meanwhile, as the rest of the country continues to find out more and more about the Morman religion from the news media, they continually are amazed at the Morman's justification to their many downfalls. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see where this is going.

I just wish one time these people could admit they made a mistake.

If Joseph Smith were alive today he would recognize the FLDS as the church that is the closest to following his teachings.

He would barely recognize the LDS church because of it's numerous changes in policy and doctrine throughout the last 150 years.

I have been reading a book about that time, it is based on diaries, I believe that back in that time, there was some practices that would be so out of date now. Of course the dress, but the early church in Utah was pretty distant from the world, don't blame them, but they are today not that way. We are told to live in the world, not of it, and the members have done that. We distanced ourselves in the early days for protection and having gone through some terrible persecution, we don't need to do that now, well we still get ragged on. But the FLDS have distanced themselves because they are living in the past and their behaviors are not acceptable in society today. There are many behaviors that have changed in this country, because we learn and understand more, see today, we don't own other people, and it is a fact that the LDS church was against slavery. Oh, and consider the source, this is the New York Times, they are even too liberal for Hillary these days.

l800 polygamy was about love and charity whereas
modern polygamy by the fake lds is all about lust, sex and abuse.

The man has it 100 percent correct.

Modern society considers it normal and acceptible for most teenagers to be sexually active. Modern society just doesn't want them getting married or having children. Modern society embrasses serial polygamy (marry, divorce, marry, divorce, marry, etc.) Modern society encourages 15 year-olds to pose nude, drapped in a sheet and then criticises them for doing it. Modern society causes teenage girls to have eating disorders and teenage boys to use steroids. Modern society embraces abortion as a convenient form of birth control. Modern Society produces teenagers that want to, and try to, kill all of their school mates.

Even if all of Egan's falsehoods about 19th century Mormons were true, it would still shine in comparison to his precious modern society. Given that they are not true, he ought to be focusing his efforts on improving the society he is part of.

For those who don't know but want to know about 19th century Mormon Polygamy I suggest reading the following books:

1) "In Sacred Lonliness" by Todd Compton
2) "Mormon Polygamy: A History" by Richard Van Wagoner
3) "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman (has chapters on Polygamy).

All of the above are written by believing Mormons and are not anti-Mormon. Reviews of each are available on-line.

Trust me, your eyes will pop out of your head when you read these.

Albert--"Some historical openness from the church would help the cause of truth, no matter what was disclosed."

Actually, the church has been very open about its history--even the ugly parts--time and time again. There are simply those who refuse to believe what is said, and persist in their stubborn notion that because the church's record does not square with their own version of what happened or the reasons why, the church must be hiding something.

It really doesn't matter what the church says, these sorts just won't believe it. Even if the church suddenly admitted to everything they want to hear, they would still not be satisfied. The leaders know this, so they refuse to engage, which to the conspiracy theorists looks like a cover-up. Hence the stance described by Elder Neal Maxwell, "When confronted with error, truth is often better served by silence than by a bad argument." And it would appear that where this topic is concerned, most any statement will be construed by the fringe as a bad argument. Leave 'em be.

I don't get why when things get hard religons say "our church must be true because this wouldn't be happening to us if it wasn't, satan is trying to get us". That doesn't make sense. Couldn't the FLDS be saying that right now because of the hardships they are going through, does that make there religon true?

I think Elder Jensens comments are sufficient. It is very sad that an educated reporter can be so uneducated. I'm not sure he was motived by honorable intentions when he wrote this article. Plus to make such tacit insunations, I would like to know his sources. Egad Egan are you for real?

Again, I say, Polygamy is wrong, It doesn't matter what time period, it is completely wrong. Married couples could have supplied the needs of the the single Mother without question. Once again the faithful latter day saints must have strong testimonies to survive.

To DeLaval Milker 7:29 a.m. I agree, after all what right does the LDS Church have to defend itself against attacks by journalists. They should just be good Christians and shut up, right?

It's just like the kid who gets bullied at school. Maybe if he just quit doing the things that encourages other kids to tease and mock him (like showing up for school) he wouldn't worry about being bullied.

And as for your comment, "You still can't spell FLDS without LDS," that might should good when you say it in the mirror, but where's the logic?

Is it okay then for me to say, "You can't spell Westboro Baptist without Baptist," or "You can't say pedophile priest without priest" or "You can't spell enviromental extremist without enviromental?"

This is one where you just say, "Consider the source" and move along. I don't know of anyone who reads the Times let alone actually believes what is printed..

It's unfortunate that both LDS and non-LDS look for explanations and/or reasoning for many parts of the Church's history.

Can you explain to me the many weird history that is contained in the Bible? In the name of righteousness things were done or came to pass that is darn right impossible for me to explain or reason away by current 2008 standards.

We need to stop trying to come up with explainations and reasoning to embrace the gospel once again or to retain our testimonies. Reading the History of the Church or the Journal of Discourses and other periodicals does provide you the historical facts. If they were publicly known back then and put into history books it's obvious that Heber, Brigham, etc felt that they had nothing to explain, reason, or rationalize. They saw it as coming from God and so should we without the NEED to justify it in our minds.

I think it funny that someone can gain a testimony of the truth of the gospel through the spirit but then they read a few History books and then say to themselves, "If I would have know this, then..." Does history nullify those spiritual manifestations?