Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 identity of traditions upon which constitutional law, in some sense, rests.) One might describe these questions more generally as questions about theoretical and practical change--changes in judgments (beliefs, convictions, positions, and so forth) as well as changes in conduct (action, intention, decision, and so forth). Some of the important questions in this domain are: (1) What counts as a change? (a) Must the change be self-conscious? (b) Must it be permanent or at least intended to be permanent? (c) If permanence, or the intent to be permanent, is required, how do we know when such a change is permanent? If so, how do we acquire this knowledge? (2) In institutional contexts, who speaks for the institution? Its leaders? The members? (a) What happens if leaders and members disagree? (b) Must there be a process which serves as both a necessary and sufficient condition for institutional change? (c) Is so, shouldn't we conclude that non-canonical changes suggest a change in the institution, not just its judgments or conduct? I do not think the above exhausts all possibilities; indeed, I'm pretty certain additional questions will easily come to mind. One final point about the LDS Church and polygamy: Many different conceptions of change are possible, but I would suggest that restrictive conceptions of change--for example conceptions requiring that the change (or the intent to change) be permanent --unduly distort the critically important phenomenon of change, and therefore, hamper our understanding how people and institutions operate. Bobby Lipkin Widener University School of Law Delaware
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 so greatly compromise their religious beliefs to this degree to civil authority. Perhaps they would accept the law as against their beliefs but if those beliefs are sincere they would not aggressively enforce the law. The law certainly didn't require that they excommunicate those who practiced polygamy. Also, to Paul Finkelman, how do you compel polygamy? Do you punish men for having only one wife? Frank Cross Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law CBA 5.202 University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 thrust of Nelson Lund's suggestion -- as distinguished from the more descriptive Realist point that religious authorities might be expected to bow to secular pressures, and then to bounce back when those pressures eased. On subordination to civil authority, here's a snippet from a 1987 address by Dallin Oaks expounding the Mormon doctrine that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired (a doctrine I recall being questioned on when I gave a talk at BYU Law School some years back.) See http://saugus.byu.edu/publications/oaks.htm U.S. citizens have an inspired Constitution, and therefore, what? Does the belief that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired affect citizens' behavior toward law and government? It should and it does. U.S. citizens should follow the First Presidency's counsel to study the Constitution.17 They should be familiar with its great fundamentals; the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. They should oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals. They should be law-abiding citizens, supportive of national, state, and local governments. The 12th Article of Faith declares: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. The Church's official declaration of belief states: We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them. . . . We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside. (DC 134:1, 5) Tom Grey Stanford Law School [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frank Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .EDU cc: Sent by: DiscussionSubject: Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons list for con law professors [EMAIL PROTECTED] v.ucla.edu 07/16/2003 07:14 AM Please respond to Discussion list for con law professors 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 so greatly compromise their religious beliefs to this degree to civil authority. Perhaps they would accept the law as against their beliefs but if those beliefs are sincere they would not aggressively enforce the law. The law certainly didn't require that they excommunicate those who practiced polygamy. Also, to Paul Finkelman, how do you compel polygamy? Do you punish men for having only one wife? Frank Cross Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law CBA 5.202 University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712
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 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 position that there change was a sincere change in belief, not merely a compromise with civil authority. Frank Cross Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law CBA 5.202 University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 position that there change was a sincere change in belief, not merely a compromise with civil authority. According to my understanding of LDS theology, the president of the LDS church is not just a leader, but is also revered as a prophet, seer, and revelator, uniquely empowered to make the will of God known to the church. This includes situations where a revelation from God has discontinued a former practice of the church. (Cf. the role of Peter in the New Testament Church, especially with regard to the revelation allowing the preaching of the gospel to the gentiles in Acts 10.) Thus the current doctrine of the LDS church is determined not by the historical teachings of the church -- which are still upheld as right for their time -- but by the current teachings of the church, which are considered right for the current time. Thus, as I understand it, the political pressure was probably the catalyst that caused the president of the church to inquire of God, but once the revelation was received, the new teaching was based on a sincere change in belief that God had authorized the new doctrine.
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 it might give precedence to subordination If Tom's characterization is correct, the distinction between retaining religious beliefs and accommodating American law vanishes as a contrast between religion and secularity. Instead, this conflict is a religious conflict which must be settled internally to the religion. If the LDS Church changes from (1) to (2), its view remains the same only in the sense that either view (in conjunction with the canonical method for ranking them) is religiously sanctioned. There is nonetheless a change in the prohibitions members of the Church are obligated to follow. Bobby Lipkin Widener University School of Law Delaware
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 thrust of Nelson Lund's suggestion . . . Exactly right, both as a summary of my suggestion and as a synopsis of the actual evidence that this thread has generated. Nelson Lund
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 members of LDS had proven their devotion to God by the suffering they underwent because of their fidelity to the norm of polygamy. Having demonstrated their mettle, they were relieved from its obligation (and the risk of continued persecution). I'm not identifying the scholar because this is my recollection, and I don't want to put words in his mouth about an issue of such theological (and practical) importance If I am correct in my recollection, though, then it does seem that one could confidently say, even if one accepts the possibility of revelation, that no such revelation would have been delivered had persecution not been attached to the practice of polygamy. sandy
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 receiving from the US. I presume that in the intervening 110 years, the ban on polygamy has taken on a considerably stronger valence, so I don't see that LDS practices in those countries where polygamy is legal (primarily Moslem countries where, I suspect, the LDS missionaries are most unwelcome in any event) 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. sandy
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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, or that the current
ban is anything more than a submission to American law.
Nelson Lund
VanL wrote:
From
http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-3,00.html
Question:
What is the Churchs position on polygamy?
Answer:
In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about
the Church's position on plural marriage:
This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy.
They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are
found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the
most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so
involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of
the law of this Church.
At various times, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural
marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Moses, David, and Solomon (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1
javascript:onClick=openScripture('http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/1#1')).
In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to
practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to
him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by
this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice.
Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages
had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. In
1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders
of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage
(Official Declaration 1
javascript:onClick=openScripture('http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1')).
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 polygamy remained into the 20th century in a number of Sephardi communities. Indeed, I had a friend in Israel who had two mothers-in-law, because his (now former) wife had emigrated from Yemen, and her father had two wives. I'm quite certain that Israel requires monogamy among Jews--I have no idea what the situation is with regard to Israeli Moslems--but polygamy was grandfathered, as it were, for Jewish immigrants who were involved in plural marriages. I hypothesized to my colleague that an obvious explanation for the difference between the two communities is that Jews in Europe felt pressures to conform to the mores of the dominant Christian community, which was monogamous, whereas there was obviously no such pressure in Moslem-dominated Sephardi areas. Similarly, I have little doubt that the Church of LDS would have maintained polygamy had the surrounding culture been more tolerant. sandy
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 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 polygamy remained into the 20th century in a number of Sephardi communities. Indeed, I had a friend in Israel who had two mothers-in-law, because his (now former) wife had emigrated from Yemen, and her father had two wives. I'm quite certain that Israel requires monogamy among Jews--I have no idea what the situation is with regard to Israeli Moslems--but polygamy was grandfathered, as it were, for Jewish immigrants who were involved in plural marriages. I hypothesized to my colleague that an obvious explanation for the difference between the two communities is that Jews in Europe felt pressures to conform to the mores of the dominant Christian community, which was monogamous, whereas there was obviously no such pressure in Moslem-dominated Sephardi areas. Similarly, I have little doubt that the Church of LDS would have maintained polygamy had the surrounding culture been more tolerant. sandy
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marci Hamilton wrote: Actually, it was for membership in a polygamous organization. The Court has been distinguishing belief and conduct in both the speech and free exercise cases for a very long time. It is a distinction that has intuitive, common sense appeal, so I would defend it, though it is not always a perfectly bright line in every case, a fault that does not doom a doctrinal distinction in my view. Marci
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 never had more than one wife. -- 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] Marci Hamilton wrote: Actually, it was for membership in a polygamous organization. The Court has been distinguishing belief and conduct in both the speech and free exercise cases for a very long time. It is a distinction that has intuitive, common sense appeal, so I would defend it, though it is not always a perfectly bright line in every case, a fault that does not doom a doctrinal distinction in my view. Marci
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 contain that would preclude the possibility of reviving the practice of plural marriages should temporal laws change? Such a possibility always exists. If so, the supposition that the LDS Church's official change in position "might be revised" in the future doesn't seem to have much content. Bobby Lipkin Widener University School of Law Delaware
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 its doctrine after a revelation from God to the President of the Church. Now, my response, which you say has nothing to do with the factual question you asked, in fact has everything to do with the factual question. IF you believe in that God spoke to the head of the Church, then there can be no other answer. It is not a response to political pressure; it can only be that God spoke, and the Church responded. That is a fully sufficient explanation to your question. If you do not believe that God speaks directly to people, then we can perhaps agree that it is political question, and we can see the abandonment of polygamy as a necessary precondition to the Church getting its property back and to Utah statehood. My other point was simply this: If one believes in such things as the virgin birth, or the resurrection, or the burning bush talking, then presumably one can accept that God spoke to the head of the Church. If so, then I would think there can be no further investigation of motivation or historical causation. God caused the change and that is that. I do not consider myself competent to interpret the causation value of God talking to the head of the church (or the virgin birth, or the resurrection, or the burning bush talking) and therefore, as a historian and a law professor, I must look to other interpretations of why the Church changed its mind. However, I know there are people on this list who do believe in God talking to the head of the church (or the virgin birth, or the resurrection, or the burning bush talking) and for them, I should think that Mormon Church doctrine is a fully sufficient explanation for the change in the church's views on polygamy. I hope it is now clear why I said what I said in the earlier post. I am sorry for any misunderstanding to for my failure to sufficiently explain my analysis. - 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) Nelson Lund wrote: 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 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
Re: Agenda and persecution of Mormons
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 polygamy based on their religious beliefs. Marci
