You’re absolutely right that the official Mormon position is now that polygamy is absolutely forbidden, but one can see why polygamists would consider themselves true Mormons–the faith’s founder Joseph Smith said polygamy was the policy. If you’re die-hard, who do you go with, the prophet or the those compromisers?
In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 132, a “Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives,” it reads
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given
unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they
are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father
continued, that he may be glorified.
What if the issue was that there were too many heterosexuals on the panel, or too many blacks? Maybe all of the members of the panel are Catholics, and you’re worried that everyone in the state is going to have to ask Mary for intercession from now on?
This thread stinks of religious prejudice, IMHO. The Mormons were driven out of every place they tried to settle except out west, and now you’re telling us that they’re an unwelcome majority in the very state that they were forced to run to? What do you want, another mass migration? Maybe the Mormons will colonize Japan next, and will force non-sushi laws on all Japanese or something. (I’m joking, of course, for the humor impaired.)
The fact is, a person can still belong to any religion he chooses and run for office in this country. Still!
I was born and raised into the LDS church, and attended seminary everyday for 2 years. Why I by no means know EVERYTHING, I have a pretty good grasp on doctrine, principals, etc.
LDS Church members also believe in following the Laws of the Land, so to speak. Article of Faith 12 “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” In other words, if the Government says not to do something, it would be against Doctrine to break the law.
In Wilford Woodruff’s Manifesto on plural marriage issued September 24, 1890"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marragies, which laws have been pronouced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intentions to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise."
Uh, what exactly aren’t the non-Mormons in given? Nobody is forced to go to Church, nobody is forced to be a Mormon…do you have legit complaints or are you just making broad, general statements that have no evidence?
What rights are you referring to? Seriously, I lived in Utah for 17 years, and I never saw anybody’s rights violated. On the flip side, what about all the Hindu’s in the country? I know there are not many Hindu people in the Federal Government, are they missing out on some rights?
What happens to these citizen’s rights when governing body is predominately a particular sect with a very strong set of dogmantic beliefs? I don’t know. Having lived in both Utah and California, I have not seen any differences what so ever. CA is more liberal, but CA is more liberal then almost all other states.
That’s like saying “I’m not racist, I know somebody who is black.”
Um, that has nothing to do with the LDS Church. While I’m sure some abuse happens in LDS families, abuse happens in ALL religions ALL over the world. Blaming one sect in one state makes lil to no sense. And if you have done lil research other then an A&E special, and do not live in Utah, please don’t say things like the local and state Governments do nothing. I know many many many fine men and women in Utah who work hard, every day to aid and assit every single person who needs it, including the victims of Polygamy.
Then I guess I have another question, while I’ve got you on the line. Wasn’t bigamy against the law when and where Mormonism was began? Did that particular Article of Faith postdate the practice of plural marriage?
I don’t think I can answer that particular question accurately. I do know when Joseph Smith annoucnced the principal of plural marriage, that was in 1843. Wilford Woodruff stopped the practice in 1890. And I know Joseph Smith wrote the Articles of Faith while he was still living. But technically there were not practicing bigamy.
from, merriam-webster.com
So, technically they were not committing bigamy or breaking any laws until the U.S. Supreme Court decided that they were, at which time the practice was haulted by Wilford Woodruff.
I realize this may not be the best or the right answer. However, since I don’t have all the answers, this is the one that makes the most sense to me. If somebody has a better one, feel free to correct me.
Interesting how you get lambasted for your inaccurate and ill-informed postings in this thread and you accuse someone of being a member of a group you dislike.
You can blow smoke up my butt about the LDS church and women all you want. But I’ve been checking up on this. Many women have had the courage recently to leave the church due to it’s treatment of women. That does not mean that it has destroyed their faith or their sprituality. Not only that the LDS church excomunicates it’s victims when they speak out to loudly and honestly about the abuses past and present of it’s governing body, the Brethern. From what I’ve been reading there was a time in the early chruch when women were given the right to bestow blessings and preach. Even then of course they were struggling to hold onto these spiritual rights, but no longer. Thanks to the manipulations of historical documents and supression of the truth by a patriarical hierarchy the average church member has no idea what the orginial history of the church was like. They have also to their benifit downplayed the role of plural marriage in Mormon doctrine. Why try so hard to hide it? Why turn it into such a dirty little secret? Because the LDS church is terrified of mainstream Christian denominations thinking that they are nothing but a very successful cult.
I am not practicing religous bigotry here. I’m just telling it like it is. Is the established Mormon church the only Judeo/Christian based denomination guilty of perverting history and suppressing documentation of doctrines that don’t fit in with their agenda? HELL NO! Take for example the Catholic church and every other denomination, they all manipulate their followers to achieve some end. One of them is the suppresion of women! That is why I do not attend church. It does not change my ideas about God or take away my spirituality. But I refuse to gather together in supposed fellowship with a bunch of people that are brainwashed into believing that women are the root of all evil and less valuable in the eyes of God. I simply don’t believe it.
I would have nothing against the practice of multiple wives if it were fine for women to have multiple husbands. I have no problem with consenting adults who want to live that way. As long as they are not coerced or brainwashed and threatened into believing that they should be some man’s chattel. I would welcome having a look at a polygamist family that is happy and healthy. Just don’t think that will happen because how could you believe these women even if they tell that they are, from what is said by the women who have gotten out they were terrified to tell the truth. Terrified of going to hell, terrified that they would be cut off from everything they have ever known, terrified of physical abuse. If one of them leaves and goes public about how great life was as a multiple wife then maybe we can get an accurate picture. Until then it just seems to look like these women are brainwashed slaves and the ones that do escape have more courage. And that’s what I mean by treating the cause and not the symptom, because every now and then one comes along that this brave 16 year old child who defies this lifestyle.
Sorry it took me so long to get back here–first the computer’s being stupid, then the ISP, then the Internet.
I will respond to the people who addressed themselves to the OP, and not to the inadvertent hijack. I am assuming that by this time you have all made your way to the official Polygamy thread, and that from here on in, we can discuss “separation of church and state” over here.
I don’t normally present tons of quotes and then respond to them, but since 90% of this thread contains “polygamy” posts, it might speed things up if people don’t have to keep scrolling back to see what was said.
I will respond to the angry Snark first:
If I perceived that a state Supreme Court had “too many” of any flavor of religion, then yes, I would be equally upset. I think that it’s part of a conscientious governor’s duty to see that the court he leaves behind him as his political legacy to his state is well-balanced, especially where it involves matters of religion. Judges are only human, and inevitably their religion is going to affect their judgements. (Note: being black or homosexual isn’t a religion.)
And yes, I realize that constitutes a sort of “affirmative action”, but I think it’s a necessary one, especially where you’re dealing with a court that has only 5 justices. The U.S. Supreme Court has 9, which I think means there’s more of a chance that true justice will be handed down.
I think this angry sarcasm is unwarranted. I wasn’t picking on Mormons, and you shouldn’t read that into my OP. I was expressing my astonishment that what I had always considered a cardinal principle of the United States had been so egregiously ignored by the Governor of Utah.
This is quite true; I don’t give a rat’s derriere what religion a political candidate professes, but the judges of the Utah Supreme Court are all political appointees. The voters of the state of Utah had absolutely no say in their appointment, and that’s where I have the problem.
Now I will talk to Zev, who at least doesn’t sound mad. Hello, Zev!
Well, yeah, now that you mention it, that’s not a bad idea. Yes, I suppose it’s “tokenism”, but I think there ought to be a balance, especially where they’re handing down legal judgements that may stand for 100 years. I’d think that they owed it to posterity to WANT the bench to be balanced.
Well, that is a toughie. I’m not sure how to answer it, except to stress, again, that it just seems mighty unfair that the good people of the State of Utah have no say in who’s on their Supreme Court. If 70% of the state is Mormon, that means that 30% is not. Are they supposed to move somewhere else if they don’t happen to like it?
I thought the phrase “separation of church and state” meant that when government people like presidents and governors make decisions, they shouldn’t do just “what their Holy Book tells them”, they should take the needs of the entire population into account, “the greatest good for the greatest number”.
I remember when Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. There was of course a tremendous amount of publicity surrounding the “first woman” thing, “Oh, he’s only naming her because she’s a woman and she’ll do”, but sensible people realized, I think, that she was standing on her record as a judge, and the fact that she was female was beside the point.
One last point–I’m not here to start an argument or get into a flame war. I really would appreciate having my personal ignorance enlightened on this issue, and having a genuine discussion about this subject. All I know about government is what I learned in high school civics class, and what I thought we learned was that according to the Constitution, religion and politics shouldn’t mix. Hence my astonishment at reading the cited article in the paper one Sunday afternoon.
Grim_Beaker…
Let’s see I went to about.com…pulled up religon…then mormon…then to my suprise (NOT!)…saw a link entitled “Discrimination and Women”. I am not going to put them here because frankly I don’t know how. Just go there yourself. Of course you could probably use any search engine and find the same things I found.
Ducky…
I did not intend to highjack your thread, but I do think that the tolerance for the practice of polygamy in the state of Utah does show that there is indeed very little separation of church and state.
I happen to wonder myself, just like your original post how fair it is to seat representatives of a governing body when their views and opinions may be seriously compromised by their beliefs. How this problem might be solved I have no clue. But I do believe I stated in one of these thread that I too felt a little sorry for the other 25% of Utah’s population that are not being represented. I guess they could move.
Grim_Beaker…
Let’s see I went to about.com…pulled up religon…then mormon…then to my suprise (NOT!)…saw a link entitled “Discrimination and Women”. I am not going to put them here because frankly I don’t know how. Just go there yourself. Of course you could probably use any search engine and find the same things I found. And I was talking about myself not the LDS church, just church in general, when I said that I do not attend church because of the attitude displayed toward women. I was raised Baptist. (BIG SUPRISE! NOT!)
Ducky…
I did not intend to highjack your thread, but I do think that the tolerance for the practice of polygamy in the state of Utah does show that there is indeed very little separation of church and state.
I happen to wonder myself, just like your original post how fair it is to seat representatives of a governing body when their views and opinions may be seriously compromised by their beliefs. How this problem might be solved I have no clue. But I do believe I stated in one of these threads that I too felt a little sorry for the other 25% of Utah’s population that are not being represented. I guess they could move.
Apparently you are a veritable wizard in your ability to provide reliable sources. First it’s A & E and now it’s a web site. Specifically an atheist web site which contains nothing but mormon critiques. At least thats all I got when I searched for the keyword “mormon”.
Since you didn’t cite a specific source perhaps I can provide one for you. At that site you mentioned it seems that this statement derives from an essay authored by Michael Quinn which can be found in a couple of books. Namely: “Women and Authority : Re-Emerging Mormon Feminism” and “The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the Past”. The former book is self described by the author as a radical departure from current interpretations of historical events and the latter seems suspicious based on title alone. Some people have no qualms over revising history in order to make it adhere more closely to current politically correct beliefs (some of the more radical feminists are particularly guilty of supporting this view).
Please list the specific abuses past and present, how the LDS church brainwashes people into believing women are the root of all evil as well as the exact source you’re using to document such. If you’re using a specific web site and are unfamiliar with how to make it appear as a link just type it in. I’ll cut and paste it into my browser. Regardless I could probably find a web site to support just about any view you’d care to mention. For the basis of a serious debate I require more than the 10 minutes you spent perusing a web site for so called “facts”.
The idea of a “token” non-Mormon on the court is intriguing. We routinely make sure that various political and judicial appointments meet some sort of sexual and racial diversity goal–should that be required in situations like this? I have no idea, but I would be interested in finding out what others think.
The idea of a “token” non-Mormon on the court is intriguing. We routinely make sure that various political and judicial appointments meet some sort of sexual and racial diversity goal–in fact the governor of my state is getting flack for appointing white males to the state college board instead of people of color. Should we consider denominational membership as well as sex and race in situations like this? If you did, would you consider all Protestants in one category, Catholics in another, athiests in another? Or would you go by denomination since we don’t really agree on many details of faith and practice? I have no opinion on this, but I would be interested in finding out what others think.
If the Utah State Supreme Court makes a ruling that violates the First Amendment’s Establishment or Free-Exercise clause, it can still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Repeated, egregious transgressions of the U.S. Constitution by justices on the Utah Supreme Court may even be grounds for their disbarment, depending on what the Utah Constitution says.
Duck Duck Goose - these questions were also asked previously (in addition to the quote you provided from Snark):
Now you’ve said:
and
and
So I take it that you’re very upset that non-Christians have, in all practical senses, no representation in our state legislatures, courts, etc.? Because ALL of those legislatures, courts, and et ceteras are almost universally Christian.
I would hope that you’re equally upset that we face the same complete lack of representation on the Federal level as well. After all, 9 of the same thing aren’t really any better than 5 of the same thing, now are they?
[/quote]
You’ve also said (paraphrased) that you would support some sort of ‘tokenism’ or ‘affirmative action’ to balance a state Supreme Court in terms of religion. smilingjaws seems to concur.
So, let’s see. We need a Hindu, and a Buddhist, and an Atheist, and a Wiccan, and a Pagan, and a … OOPS! I’m out of space already, and I haven’t even gotten to the Christian denominations. See the problem there?
What ‘separation of church and state’ means is NOT that all religions will have equal representation in the various branches of government. Instead, it means that the government can not promote the practice of a particular religion, nor can it prevent the practice of a particular religion. (Within limits, just to stop any silliness - you still can’t murder people just because your religion says so.) Just what constitutes such ‘promotion’ and ‘prevention’ and just what ‘limits’ are reasonable, is the source of the debates over such issues as school prayer and religious use of prohibited drugs.
Make sense?
All right, I’ve read the thread and come to two conclusions…
Needs2Know is in the wrong thread.
There’s still a lot of misconceptions about the Mormon church (as there is about many religions/beliefs).
But I’ll worry about all that later. To answer DuckDuck’s OP, I think the presence of an all-Mormon (or all-anything for that matter) roster on the Utah Supreme Court does indeed lend a greater possibility for biased rulings. However, it’s folly to denounce the act now with nothing to go on… that’s like jailing a Dallas Cowboy before he breaks any law. I, for one, have found that Mormons, as a group, are a fair-minded people, and I’ve dealt with them quite a bit (I used to be one, for cryin’ out loud). I don’t think there’ll be any trouble.
Ok, I’m am a huge fan of Separation of Chrurch and State. Try to bring it up on every occassion and generally see this nation doing poorly in keep religion out of the government. However, even I can’t see the violation of Chruch and State in this instance. Their religion does not automatically mean they will violate Constitutional principles. Now, once they start to rule in such a way that shows a violation of Church and State, then your concern will have some basis.
And Needs2Know…
You really need to start a new thread for this. You obviously have a topic that would be a very active thread, but it’s unfair to do it here in Duck Duck Goose’s thread.
However, if you don’t, then I do want to ask you to try to get the other side of the story. Instead oftaking the word of perfect strangers at face value, why don’t you go to a Mormon church and see what they really believe. It’s not that hard, just find a local branch, sit in the back and listen. You’ll see that the Mormons don’t see anyone the root of all evil, not even other denominations. The Mormon religion overall tends to be very fairminded and optimistic. It doesn’t buy into Original Sin and never, in my recollection, have I ever seen anyone claim women are evil. the church has taken a firm stand against wife abuse and has state in no uncertain terms that a good Mormon doesn’t beat his wife.
For the record, I was raised Mormon, but basically have problems with believing their is a God and see religion as an attempt to explain the seemingly unexplainable.
Frankly, I fail to see why Mormons inspire such ire. The centers of their belief is family, good health, hard work, charity, honesty, and being a good person. How is that bad?
This is not the Mormon-bashing thread. All you people who want to bash Mormons, go somewhere else!
Geez.
Onwards.
Yes, that’s precisely my point. The governor of Utah had a vacant seat on the bench to fill; it seems to me he ought to have looked around a little more and found a non-Mormon to fill it, in the interests of simple fairness. No, I’m not suggesting that every Supreme Court bench ought to have “one Wiccan, one pagan, one Baptist, etc.” But I do think that he could have made it a little more balanced.
Spoofe, I agree that Mormons are probably no less fair-minded as a group than other religious groups, like Baptists or Pentecostals. However, the article points out that there was a ruling a few years back concerning opening legislative sessions with prayer, and at that time the bench had 4 Mormons on it, and the writer, Paul Foy, speculated on how the vote would have gone today, with all the justices being Mormon.
When you’re a member of a religious group that perceives itself as being in an “us against them” situation, it may be difficult to separate yourself from that religious slant and focus only on what the Constitution says. I would characterize the Mormons this way because it seems to me that the LDS websites I’ve looked at have focussed an awful lot on explaining themselves to the “Gentiles”–Methodists, Jews, and Presbyterians don’t seem to feel a need to explain themselves quite so much. “Who we are, what we stand for…”
Well, yeah, actually, I am. Although I don’t think that when the President (or Governor) is looking at candidates for a vacant seat, he ought to try to “go shopping” for a Jew, or an atheist, or a Muslim, or whatever, still he can’t help knowing what a person’s religious affiliation is, and I think he ought to try to keep it from becoming too unbalanced.
Tracer, yes, thanks for reminding me that the Utah Supreme Court (and by extension, the governor of Utah) is still accountable to SOMEONE. Although I have to wonder what percentage of decisions would ever be appealed and overturned. And I can’t even visualize a situation in which a Supreme Court judge would be disbarred because he blatantly voted his personal convictions rather than what the Constitution said. Has that ever actually happened?
(I’m joking, of course, for the humor impaired.)