Re: "Agenda"

[Robert Justin Lipkin]

In a message dated 7/12/2003 12:50:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

was it more than an
accommodation, possibly temporary, to American law?

      
       It would be interesting to know precisely what the above proposition means and what sort of evidence is relevant to proving it true. From some perspectives almost anything is "possibly temporary" (emphasis added) and many things might be an accommodation to American law. Do we ask the practitioners of a faith or practice whether they think the Church's changed position is permanent and canonical? Do we consult Church leaders? Do we consult the text, if any, relevant to the practice or tradition? Can it still be an accommodation if all the relevant canonical sources say it's permanent  and canonical.  Does the fact that the changed position promises (or turns out) to be permanent mean that it was more than accommodation? Finally, and this perhaps is the central question, can a change be a genuine, canonical change and still be "an accommodation, possibly temporary to American law"?

       The original query was :"In what way has the Mormon Church "changed it views"? Has the church gone beyond a decision to submit, for the time being, to the legal prohibitions that the dominant culture insists upon?" In my limited understanding, the LDS Church prohibits polygamy.  In those circumstances, what sorts of factors would nonetheless prove or provide evidence for the proposition that "Despite what leaders, practitioners, and texts of the LDS faith say regarding polygamy, X, Y, and Z show that prohibiting polygamy is not a true change of the Church's views; it's rather just "an accommodation, possibly temporary, to American Law?" What would "X," "Y," or "Z" stand for?

       One fundamentally important caveat concerning the factual proposition "what leaders, practitioners, and texts of the LDS faith say regarding polygamy," I am assuming the truth of this proposition--that polygamy is sinful or prohibited--from what LDS friends tell me about their faith. I have no independent access to what the Church now says about polygamy. My argument is directed to what I take to be the present situation, to wit: The LDS Church--leaders and members--believe polygamy to be a sin. In this situation, what would it mean to say that despite what they believe, the change is only an accommodation?

Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware