The recent thread concerning the change in the LDS Church regarding polygamy--and let's be precise, it was polygamy not merely plural marriages-raises critically important questions about constitutional, moral, political, social, and personal change. (For example, change is central to the
I don't see how one can argue that the LDS church hasn't changed its
religious views on polygamy. We know that they now excommunicate someone
for engaging in polygamy.
To say that this was just a concession to civil authority is pretty
demeaning to the church, I think, suggesting that they would
School
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frank Cross
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.EDU cc:
Sent by: DiscussionSubject: Re: Agenda and
persecution of Mormons
Re Marci Hamilton and Tom Grey's point:
I recognize very well that religions could with integrity choose to comply
with civil society and even be
informed by civil society in their beliefs.
However, if the LDS thought that polygamy was religiously compelled and
then, in the face of government
Frank Cross wrote:
However, if the LDS thought that polygamy was religiously compelled and
then, in the face of government opposition, not only agreed to give up
polygamy but also excommunicated those who disagreed, they are going far
beyond the demands of civil society.
I think the LDS take the
In a message dated 7/16/2003 11:56:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The LDS Church might believe in both 1] polygamy and 2] subordination to
legitimate civil authority as religious requirements. Then if these came
into conflict, some resolution would have to be reached, and
Tom Grey wrote:
The LDS Church might believe in both 1] polygamy and 2] subordination to
legitimate civil authority as religious requirements. Then if these came
into conflict, some resolution would have to be reached, and it might give
precedence to subordination. I take it this is the
A follow-up on my comment that I have little doubt that the
Church of LDS would have maintained polygamy had the
surrounding culture been more tolerant.
At a conference I was at last year, a distinguished LDS law professor said
that the basis of the revelation was the Prophet's being told that
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?
The initial challenge is explaining the change in LDS position in 1890, and
I think there's not doubt that it was sparked by the persecution it was
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
These statements seem consistent with the document posted earlier by Keith
Whittington, which said that the church had decided to require its members to
comply with American laws against polygamy. I don't see anything here indicating
that the practice of plural marriages has been banned forever,
PROTECTED]
Sent: 7/14/03 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Agenda
The analogy to the persecution of the LDS church is a
very apt one, I think.
If private homophobia is at least as great an evil
as was polygamy, is society (or at least powerful
secular elites in society) prepared to treat Catholics
and traditional
A colleague of mine came by my office today to ask about the Jewish
position on monogramy. I told him that there is/was a dramatic difference
between Sephardi and Ashkenazic Jewry, that monogamy was decreed sometime
in the 11th century (I believe) by (I believe) an Eastern European rabbi,
whereas
I believe Israel exempted Yemenite Jews from its monogomy rules when they came in the
1950s.
Islam *allows* polygamy, while the Mormons required it, which makes a big difference
in how one views the free exercise issues.
Paul Finkelman
Quoting Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A colleague
Indeed, the New York Times Book Revciew this past Sunday just featured a review of a
new book by the author of Into Thin Air on just this topc.
Gerald Russello
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
The analogy to the persecution of the LDS church is a
very apt one, I think.
If private homophobia is at least as great an evil
as was polygamy, is society (or at least powerful
secular elites in society) prepared to treat Catholics
and traditional Christians the way it treated Mormans
in the
Dear Rod,
In your view is Marci right about the existence of the Fundamentalist Mormon Church? Is that a name of an actual church? Thanks, Dean Smith.
Love,
Bobby
polygamists, and
disclaims any connection to the splinter groups. That doesn't mean that
individual members of LDS might be sympathetic to the polygmaminsts.
Lynne
- Original Message -
From: Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Agenda
Is "membership" in an organization -- ie: subscribing to the belief in polygamy
-- a "conduct" or a "belief." It seems to me it is a belief, since the defendant
here had never had more than one wife.
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
-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
In the military, saying, I am gay, is conduct. I'm not sure how, Gay is good, is
classified.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/03 10:46AM
Is membership in an organization -- ie: subscribing to the belief in
polygamy -- a conduct or a belief. It seems to me it is a belief,
since the defendant here had
, 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
In a message dated 7/13/2003 11:40:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
But what evidence could the documents
In response to Nelson Lund's posting (below):
Nelson, you asked the following question: My question was and is:
exactly what did the change consist of, and was it more than an
accommodation, possibly temporary, to American law?
This was in response to my earlier posting that the Church changed
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. One does not need a hypothetical change in belief in mainstream Mormonism to find individuals practicing
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
