Thanks very much. Based at least on this evidence, it would appear that I was correct to surmise that the church was merely submitting to temporal laws forbidding polygamy. Nothing that I see in these documents precludes the possibility that the practice of plural marriages might be revived if those temporal laws are someday changed.
Nelson Lund "Keith E. Whittington" wrote: > > The end of Mormon polygamy was announced via an 1890 "Manifesto" by Wilford > Woodruff, then president of LDS. A copy can be found on an anti-Mormon > website at http://www.polygamyinfo.com/manfesto.htm. A more elaborate > discussion of the Manifesto and its follow-up can be found at > http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polygamy.shtml (on another critical site). > > Keith Whittington > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion list for con law professors > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nelson Lund > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 10:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: "Agenda" and persecution of Mormons > > 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 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >
