I don't have the slightest idea what the post below has to do with the perfectly simple factual question that I asked. I had imagined that when the church changed its position on polygamy, it would have issued some kind of written document explaining the change to its members. Because there are so many historians on the list, I was hoping that one of them might know what the exact contents of that document were.
Rather than risk any further misinterpretations of my simple factual question, I hereby withdraw it. Nelson Lund > Paul Finkelman wrote: > > Well, your question presumes that you do not believe that the > president of the Church of LDS received a revelation from God telling > him to change church law. > I am not competent to comment on whether that was true or not, any > more than I can comment on whether Jesus rose from the dead, was born > of "virgin birth." > > But, if you accept either of the latter, or at least accept the > possibility of either of the later, than you, as a matter of comity, > ought to accept the former. So, in that sense, your question is > answered by God. > > On the other had, if you do not accept the possibility of virgin birth > and rising from the dead, then you might not accept the idea that God > told the president of the LDS to change the rules of polygamy, and > then we are back to the political question. The U.S. Government had > been conducting a "war" of sorts against the Mormons, with the Supreme > Court often leading the way. Congress had authorized, and the Court > upheld (see Late Corporation of the Church of LDS) the confiscation of > almost all Church property; thousands of Mormons were in jails and > persecution was rampant. Under those circumstance, the Church changed > its doctrine. See generally Edwin Frimage and Richard Collin Mangrum, > Zion in the Courts. > > It is important to note that polygamy was a requirement for Mormon men > who could afford to support more than one wife, if there wre single > women in the community. Thus the war on the Mormons was persecution > for religous doctinre and belief. Davis v. Beason (1890) upheld a > proseution for belief, not action. It shows how far the U.S. govt. > and the Court can go in persecuting religious minorities. > > Paul Finkelman > > -- > Paul Finkelman > Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law > University of Tulsa College of Law > 3120 East 4th Place > Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 > > 918-631-3706 (office) > 918-631-2194 (fax) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Nelson Lund wrote: > > > Of course the church changed its position. My question was and is: > > exactly what did the change consist of, and was it more than an > > accommodation, possibly temporary, to American law? > > > > > > > > Paul Finkelman wrote: > > > > > >> The Church of LDS in fact officially changed its position, > >> claiming revelation from God. The literature on this is pretty > >> strong. You could start with RELIGION AND AMERICAN LAW: AN > >> ENCYCLOPEDIA (Garland, not Routledge, 2000) (Paul Finkelman, ed.) > >> which has a number of entries on the Mormon church and lots of > >> bibliographic leads to other more complete sources. > >> > >> Paul Finkelman > >> Univ. of Tulsa College of Law > >> > >> Quoting Nelson Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Jack Balkin wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >> . . . It is very unlikely that the Catholic Church is going > >> >> > >> >> > >> > to change its views > >> > > >> > > >> >> on homosexuality in the same way that the Mormon church > >> >> > >> >> > >> > changed its views > >> > > >> > > >> >> on polygamy. . . . > >> >> > >> >> > >> > 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? > >> > > >> > Nelson Lund > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
