Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Fight against polygamy law taken to supreme court

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I recall reading of circumstances in which, regardless of whether or not a law is being enforced (in this case, whether or not the Browns are being charged), the existence of any such law itself (if the law is suspect of being unconstitutional) is reason enough to move forward with a trial to overturn such laws, whether or not charges are being actively filed...  Can't quite put my finger on it at the moment, but if anyone else knows of such, please feel free to share.

I hope the Brown's prevail.  I have long supported the LDS church's fundamental right to practice consensual polygamy without government intrusion, and I continue to support contemporary Faiths and non-Faith-affiliated individuals' right to engage in polygamous marriages.

If the LDS church were to file an amicus brief in support of the Browns, it would go a long way to showing that it's leaders are willing to put their money where their mouth is, regarding their numerous calls to defend religious freedom... but somehow, I doubt that will happen.  Unfortunately, from my perspective, the LDS church's actions in the recent past indicate that when they advocate supporting religious freedom, they're really only referring to preserving their own religious views, instead of protecting the freedoms of religions who disagree with their own LDS beliefs.

Every group has the right to advocate for their own positions without regard to the positions of other groups.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/14/2016 at 0:03 PM, Buckeye said:

That was my point. I would fall out of my chair in surprise were the church to file such a brief. But not filing it severely undercuts the church's purported interest in religious freedom. By the church's own definition, not to mention its own history, the practice of polygamy between consenting adults for religiously-motivated reasons is a core religious freedom that should be defended. And where else but Utah would the church have more sway to actually influence a change for such greater religious freedom?  That the church stays silent, or even opposes this freedom, makes it difficult to believe that the church's motivations are principled; they're just typical self-interest.

This is a sticky issue for church leadership, as they has long tried to distance the church from polygamous offshoot groups. One way they have traditionally signaled that distance is by supporting laws that prosecute people entering into these kinds of relationships. By doing so, church leaders are saying to the world, "We are not polygamists. Don't confuse us with those other people." But you're right, if they really want to get on board with religious freedom, they need to change gears here. I don't think they will. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I recall reading of circumstances in which, regardless of whether or not a law is being enforced (in this case, whether or not the Browns are being charged), the existence of any such law itself (if the law is suspect of being unconstitutional) is reason enough to move forward with a trial to overturn such laws, whether or not charges are being actively filed...  Can't quite put my finger on it at the moment, but if anyone else knows of such, please feel free to share.

I hope the Brown's prevail.  I have long supported the LDS church's fundamental right to practice consensual polygamy without government intrusion, and I continue to support contemporary Faiths and non-Faith-affiliated individuals' right to engage in polygamous marriages.

If the LDS church were to file an amicus brief in support of the Browns, it would go a long way to showing that it's leaders are willing to put their money where their mouth is, regarding their numerous calls to defend religious freedom... but somehow, I doubt that will happen.  Unfortunately, from my perspective, the LDS church's actions in the recent past indicate that when they advocate supporting religious freedom, they're really only referring to preserving their own religious views, instead of protecting the freedoms of religions who disagree with their own LDS beliefs.

The problem is that the lawsuit is being filed against the cohabitation ban that is part of the bigamy statute. I have already stated that if the Browns really want to fight the good fight, they just need to have one or more of the other spiritual unions registered civilly. As it is, I doubt that the Supreme court will hear the case. The Browns are not even living in Utah now, and they might not even have legal standing in the case.

They might not even have to register any other marriages. All they would have to do is apply for multiple marriage licenses, letting the clerk know what they are for, then sue when the licenses are denied.

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

The problem is that the lawsuit is being filed against the cohabitation ban that is part of the bigamy statute. I have already stated that if the Browns really want to fight the good fight, they just need to have one or more of the other spiritual unions registered civilly....

...All they would have to do is apply for multiple marriage licenses, letting the clerk know what they are for, then sue when the licenses are denied.

That offers them a couple of options...among others.

 

Meanwhile, there was a time when governments were granted zero say in such matters...and in other matters...such as who collected rain water on their own private property. 

But when you're a hammer, perhaps everything is a nail. When you're a legislator, perhaps everything supposedly needs to be surrounded by a new law. 

 

And there was also a time, for example, when it was decided in Nephite society that their society's laws were sufficient, and they shifted to a reign of judges. Scripture suggests a somewhat similar day...eventually.

Edited by notHagoth7

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/14/2016 at 4:27 PM, Glenn101 said:

The church has already been through a polygamy loss before the Supreme Court. But this is not really about polygamy. It is about unmarried cohabitation, and the Brown's are not even being charged.

Glenn

Yeah but that was a court over a 100 years ago and views have changed.  I think just on First Amendment grounds it would be upheld.  Free exercise of religion exists only if people are actually able to exercise their religious views.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Gray said:

This is a sticky issue for church leadership, as they has long tried to distance the church from polygamous offshoot groups. One way they have traditionally signaled that distance is by supporting laws that prosecute people entering into these kinds of relationships. By doing so, church leaders are saying to the world, "We are not polygamists. Don't confuse us with those other people." But you're right, if they really want to get on board with religious freedom, they need to change gears here. I don't think they will. 

The church's political opposition to polygamy in the 20th century results from more than just a desire to differentiate ourselves from mormon splinter groups in the public eye. The main reason has been to hinder these groups lest they present viable options and opposition to the LDS church. It may have started out as a requirement for statehood. But it morphed into a way to hinder other faiths that challenge us.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Buckeye said:

The church's political opposition to polygamy in the 20th century results from more than just a desire to differentiate ourselves from mormon splinter groups in the public eye. The main reason has been to hinder these groups lest they present viable options and opposition to the LDS church. It may have started out as a requirement for statehood. But it morphed into a way to hinder other faiths that challenge us.

Or less cynically we fight it because of the human misery it has been spawning.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Or less cynically we fight it because of the human misery it has been spawning.

I think that we as a nation are in the same category as those in Jacob 2.
We aren't living lives worthy of such a principle being lived and it would certainly become even more abused, spawn more misery, and make something sacred into something filthy if it were legalized.
God won't command it while we are in our current mess so we shouldn't be seeking it right now either.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/16/2016 at 1:56 PM, JLHPROF said:

I think that we as a nation are in the same category as those in Jacob 2.
We aren't living lives worthy of such a principle being lived and it would certainly become even more abused, spawn more misery, and make something sacred into something filthy if it were legalized.
God won't command it while we are in our current mess so we shouldn't be seeking it right now either.

I am not quite so sure we know the mind of God well enough to make that determination. We weren't ready for it in the 1800s either and they were not living lives worthy of the principle. God could very well spring it on us again. I am safe though. I haven't even found one wife yet.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not quite so sure we know the mind of God well enough to make that determination. We weren't ready for it in the 1800s either and they were not living lives worthy of the principle. God could very well spring it on us again. I am safe though. I haven't even found one wife yet.

Neither we nor the world were ready for it in the 1800s when it was a relatively new idea at the time for this country. Both are even less ready for it now and less ready to even tolerate the living the principle. It would solidify in the minds of everyone the idea that we have reverted to a strange cult, if they didn't already think that of us now. Many church members would decide that the leadership of the church has fallen and would resign. I don't think God will ever require it of us again in this life. The millennium would be the earliest it could happen when those who were practicing it in the past or have been sealed to multiple women are resurrected and have come back to the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JAHS said:

Neither we nor the world were ready for it in the 1800s when it was a relatively new idea at the time for this country. Both are even less ready for it now and less ready to even tolerate the living the principle. It would solidify in the minds of everyone the idea that we have reverted to a strange cult, if they didn't already think that of us now. Many church members would decide that the leadership of the church has fallen and would resign. I don't think God will ever require it of us again in this life. The millennium would be the earliest it could happen when those who were practicing it in the past or have been sealed to multiple women are resurrected and have come back to the earth.

D&C says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived it and in the same section says they are exalted. It seems pretty important considering the importance of who lived it. Also include Moses, Joseph Smith, and most of the modern prophets are sealed to more than one woman.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

D&C says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived it and in the same section says they are exalted. It seems pretty important considering the importance of who lived it. Also include Moses, Joseph Smith, and most of the modern prophets are sealed to more than one woman.

It's important for them and it still will be in the future eternity.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be a definite "sheep/goats ' situation. Perhaps there could be a call to live both polygamy and the LoC . Talk about thinning the herd ! Add to that pulling up stakes and moving to Missouri . Can't wait !!!

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JAHS said:

Neither we nor the world were ready for it in the 1800s when it was a relatively new idea at the time for this country. Both are even less ready for it now and less ready to even tolerate the living the principle. It would solidify in the minds of everyone the idea that we have reverted to a strange cult, if they didn't already think that of us now. Many church members would decide that the leadership of the church has fallen and would resign. I don't think God will ever require it of us again in this life. The millennium would be the earliest it could happen when those who were practicing it in the past or have been sealed to multiple women are resurrected and have come back to the earth.

I am not sure I would agree with you. I would say the world would be more tolerant of us now if we brought back polygamy. There they were fighting Victorian era Protestant sexual mores where table legs were considered too phallic to be used. Now there is little stigma for sexual experimentation and porn usage. We would not be a strange cult unless we copied the so-called fundamentalists and built complexes, abused our children, and defied Joseph Smith and Brigham Young by eschewing education.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure I would agree with you. I would say the world would be more tolerant of us now if we brought back polygamy. There they were fighting Victorian era Protestant sexual mores where table legs were considered too phallic to be used. Now there is little stigma for sexual experimentation and porn usage. We would not be a strange cult unless we copied the so-called fundamentalists and built complexes, abused our children, and defied Joseph Smith and Brigham Young by eschewing education.

I should clarify. The "world" might be more tolerant of it now but anyone that might have otherwise been interested in investigating the church would almost certainly be turned off by it.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I should clarify. The "world" might be more tolerant of it now but anyone that might have otherwise been interested in investigating the church would almost certainly be turned off by it.

Or the church would attract the wrong people joining for the wrong reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I should clarify. The "world" might be more tolerant of it now but anyone that might have otherwise been interested in investigating the church would almost certainly be turned off by it.

If it didn't scare off the Victorian English I am wondering who these people are that could now be scared off.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/17/2016 at 10:18 PM, The Nehor said:

I am not quite so sure we know the mind of God well enough to make that determination. We weren't ready for it in the 1800s either and they were not living lives worthy of the principle. God could very well spring it on us again. I am safe though. I haven't even found one wife yet.

I think the problem was the worthiness of the principle, not the worthiness of the people. 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the problem was the worthiness of the principle, not the worthiness of the people. 

And I think it did not go far enough by bringing in polyandry.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think the problem was the worthiness of the principle, not the worthiness of the people.

And I am sure it was the exact opposite, just like Jacob 2.
 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/18/2016 at 7:51 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

D&C says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived it and in the same section says they are exalted. It seems pretty important considering the importance of who lived it. Also include Moses, Joseph Smith, and most of the modern prophets are sealed to more than one woman.

I think exaltation of those individuals is in following the commandments. To the extent that obedience is central to exaltation, then yes, for those you mention, I believe it is safe to say that striving to live plural marriage was important to their exaltation.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...