I don't think the distinction you're drawing here can be drawn from the evidence you've summarized, Chris. My original surmise was that the church merely decided to submit to American law, and I didn't think this implied a change in its religious views about plural marriages. I sincerely oppose the violation of many laws that I believe with equal sincerity should be repealed. Similarly, it seems to me that the Mormon Church could sincerely oppose the violation of American laws against plural marriage without in any way implying that it had changed its religious views about the value of plural marriages. The evidence you present here seems to reinforce my original suspicion, or at least does not contradict it.
Is there some church document saying that plural marriages would not be legitimate even if they were permitted by temporal law? That would seem to indicate that there had been a change in the church's religious views, but so far nobody has come up with such a document. Nelson Lund Christopher Eisgruber wrote: > > In her excellent book on the Mormon controversy, Sally Gordon reports > that the practice of Mormon polygamy persisted quietly, with some degree > of approval from church authorities, until a scandal surrounding > hearings about the election of Senator Reed Smoot. The hearings > persisted from 1904 - 1907. (This, obviously, supports Nelson's point). > > She also reports that, from 1907 onward, the Mormon Church has > vigorously insisted that only heterosexual, monogamous marriages are > legitimate. Polygamous patriarchs have been "ostracized" (this, I > think, supports the line being taken by Bobby and Paul; it seems to me > that the current church's opposition to polygamy is sincere). > > See Sarah B. Gordon, The Mormon Question: Polygamy and > Constititutional Conflict in Nineteenth Century America 233-238. > > --Chris > > Robert Justin Lipkin wrote: > > > In a message dated 7/14/2003 1:33:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > >> This strand has been particularly strained in my view, because there > >> are, of course, a significant number of fundamentalist Mormons today > >> who are polygamous in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. > > > > This is, of course, correct. However, does anyone know whether > > the LDS Church recognizes these people as members? Or, instead, is one > > excommunicated for entering plural marriages? It is my understanding > > that "fundamentalist Mormons" are not considered members of the > > Church. Moreover, although I'm pretty sure the people Marci refers to > > consider themselves to be members of the "true church," do they > > consider themselves members of the official (recognized, how does one > > say this?) Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? How would one > > identify the relevant groups for constitutional purposes? > > > > Bobby Lipkin > > Widener University School of Law > > Delaware > > -- > Christopher L. Eisgruber > Director, Program in Law and Public Affairs > Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Public Affairs > Woodrow Wilson School > Princeton University > Princeton NJ 08544 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > tel: 609 258-6949 > fax: 609 258-0922
