Sanford Levinson wrote:
Frank Cross asks:
Would it count as evidence against this thesis if the LDS church
rejected
polygamy even in nations where the practice is legal?
[snip]
...[doubts that current prohibition of polygamy in countries where it
is currently allowed]
would count as evidence for what triggered the
initial event in the US in 1890, when the Church was restricted, I
presume,
almost entirely to the US.
While it is true that the majority of LDS church members in the 1890s
were located in the United States, there were substantial LDS
populations in both Mexico and various Polynesian Islands, where
polygamy was not outlawed. The official declaration withdrawing church
sanction of polygamy was propagated and enforced in these outlying
congregations as well as in the United States.
As I understand it, the essential issue is the one raised by Sanford
Levinson. The sanction of polygamy was not absolute, rather it was
sanctioned for a time, and then the sanction was repealed, in much the
same manner that constitutional doctrines can change through time even
in the face of an unchanging text. There is little doubt that the
persecution resulting from the practice of polygamy was the "current
controversy" that prompted the review of the LDS church position, and
the doctrine may not have been changed in the absence of that
persecution. However, for a member of the LDS faith at that time, it
would have been more akin to a judicial review (or in this case, a
"revelation review") of an existing law than a change in the underlying
foundation of belief. Of course, this presupposes the acceptance of
revelation on the part of the member.
