smac97

I never said polygamy and Jews in the attic are "the same." An analogy is a comparison of traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things. If I compare an apple to a tennis ball, it will likely be about their shared approximate size, not how they taste the same. My great-great grandfather was imprisoned for months. The difference is one of degree, not kind. My great-great grandfather wasn't given a trial: Clearly, Alexander was not threatened although he was treated cruelly by his 7th Regiment captors. Thomas Ackley, another military officer recorded in his journal how Alexander Macdonald, sleeping in the guard house hall, exhausted after the long march from Provo, was nearly murdered by an imprisoned soldier. Walking into the room with his ball and chain, “One of these fellows let his iron ball drop, . . . intending for it to strike the Mormon in the head, and would have killed him had it not been that he threw up his arm to save himself, but broke his arm.” (The diarist later identifies the injured man as Alexander Macdonald who was denied medical treatment for his broken arm.) Ackley later expressed amusement at observing Macdonald and other prisoners working “. . . with large sacks of sand tied to them, others with large logs of wood strapped to their backs for punishment. . . . .” Later Alexander was confined to small adobe room, barely large enough for him to stand, and with only a small pile of straw as bathroom facilities. A frantic Elizabeth tried to visit him and bring him bedding and food, but she was turned away. One of the officers had Macdonald brought to his quarters at night to secretly teach him the doctrines of Mormonism. Alexander later told his wife that the young captain believed the teachings but feared that joining the church would jeopardize his military career. Eventually the Army was embarrassed into releasing A.F. Macdonald and he returned to his wife and sons in Springville. Per this article, AF was imprisoned for six months. AF suffered. His family suffered. Many other Latter-day Saints suffered. This is surely distinct from the horrors inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis, but the distinctions are more of degree than of kind. ETA: I acknowledge a key distinction of kind, namely, that Jews were persecuted for who they were, whereas Latter-day Saints were persecuted for who they were and what they did. Nevertheless, the material similarity draws on the moral dilemma aspect. People in Europe during WWII faced a moral dilemma in deciding whether to hide Jews. 19th-century Latter-day Saints faced a moral dilemma in deciding whether to obey the law of the land or what they viewed to be the laws of God. Can you acknowledge that such a dilemma for this latter group existed? If not, why not? I agree. Ah, I did not know that (or I have forgotten). Thank you for the clarification. Understood. But it's a hypothetical. And if there was some element of the situation where you were compelled to deny your relationship with your partner, would you do it? I'm not sure you are aware of why I post in the style I do. We have a way of testing this. You could post what you think re: "why." Then I could do the same. I suspect they would be quite different. And between us, I am far better situated to speak as to the "why." Okay. Thanks, -Smac

You can ignore my posts. Excellent. Back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. You've had your say. Let's get back to the topic. Or you can ignore my posts. Or both. Thanks, -Smac

Well, you could just stick to the topic, or ignore my posts, or both. Thanks, -Smac

I think we have differing expectations. You seem to think "common courtesy" imposes an obligation to respond. I don't.

Thanks. I think CB's and Calm's repeated references to "other people" agreeing with them to be kind of weird. It's argumentum ad populum. Other people like my posting style, so where does that leave us? My take: It takes us to a return to discussing the topic, with each of us at liberty to ignore posts we dislike. Thanks, -Smac

Figuratively. It's not an "excuse." It's an illustration of a principle, which is this: There may be circumstances in which it is moral to disobey civil law. For Latter-day Saints, who are commanded to obey the laws of the land, this can create a moral conundrum. Here's another illustration: If you and your husband were moving to another country, and if that county conditioned your entry and residency on you getting a divorce (because the country has laws against same-sex couples/marriage), would you obey that law? Or if the county required you to affirm under oath that you are not in a same-sex marriage, would you make that affirmation? Yes, you stacked the deck there. You are free to speak as you like. As am I. Yet again, someone is conflating disagreement with misunderstanding. I understand that some people dislike my posting style. I disagree with, and reject, requests that I alter my posting style to suit your preferences. Do you see the difference? Thanks, -Smac

You’ve received similar feedback from multiple participants and you ignore and defend. I am the world's leading authority on what I think. That more than one person imputes motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold does not validate those imputations. Instead, you go passive aggressive and indirectly accuse me of being immature. Classy. And ad hominem. Sure would be nice to discuss the topic instead. We are each at liberty to proceed as we see fit. But yes, if you key your participation on this board on how much you can control and dictate how others participate (such as myself), I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I think there is a substantial mismatch between my reasons for participating here and your expectations of my reasons, and of my participation. My posts do not conform to your expectations (which apparently involve "socializing"), and I am not inclined to change my posts to conform to them. If that frustrates you, then perhaps you are better off ignoring my posts. I wish you well. Thanks, -Smac

When you refuse to answer questions that might clarify your position, there is not much else we can do. I generally respond to inquiries, quite a bit in fact. In any event, the imputation of ill motives is, in my view, a form of ad hominem. I have questions not responded to all the time. It's just the way these boards work. We're not obligated to each other. We lose track of discussions. We may lose interest in discussions. I may not want to respond to questions about me instead of the topic. As for "not much else we can do," I disagree. We could return to discussing the topic rather than the participants in it. Hard to keep track of every thread and every discussion within each thread. And it's not like any of us is obligated to each other. Take, for example, Nehor. I regularly let him "have the last word" because I find his provocateur schtick and frequent lack of substantive commentary/insight and dialed-to-eleven sarcasm and personal hostility to frequently detract from discussion of the topic at hand. Rather than dwell on Nehor, though, I generally try to get back to discussing the topic. Similarly, I find your tendency to personalize discussions frequently detracts from discussion of the topic. I would prefer to focus on the topic. If I misunderstand something, that can be pointed out and demonstrated (rather than, say, simply assumed and followed by lectures). Most of the time, though, I think I do understand, I just disagree, and that disagreement is then construed by some as, and publicly declared to be, me "misunderstanding" something, which is another form of ad hominem. I don't come to this board for "connection." That's an expectation I have, I think, repeatedly rejected. As I noted to Mustard a few weeks ago, I don't come here to "socialize." I come here to discuss and debate topics pertaining to or touching on the Church and the Restored Gospel, quite often difficult ones. As for "concern for the other," I really don't know how to respond to that. None of us knows each other. I am generally quite civil and respectful in my comments. You are, of course, free to board nanny and personalize threads, as you frequently do, but I wish you wouldn't. My sense is that I have ruffled some feathers and outright offended some (and others have done that to me). As you say, online text communication is never perfect. More to the point, though, is that many of the topics raised here are controversial, which means participants will understandably have differing viewpoints on them. When that happens, disagreement can become less about the topic, and commentary can devolve into various manifestations of ad hominem and other forms of fallacious reasoning. I think communication is hindered when discussions become personalized, when terrible motives are imputed (and rarely demonstrated), and where logical fallacies overwhelm substantive interaction and focus on the topic. More mindreading and tone policing and board nannying. Sure would be nice to focus on the topics of discussion, rather than endless personalizing of threads. How about this: I will let you say what you think, and in ways that you deem fit (within the parameters of the board rules and general civility), and I'll ask that you reciprocate that accommodation. And this: If you don't care for the content or tone or format or style or whatever about my posts, you can ignore them. I would prefer that, as I don't answer to you and don't feel obligated to conform to your expectations and preferences. But again, you are free to say what you like, and participate in ways that you like. Argumentum ad populum. The valuable thing about a message board is that if a misunderstanding arises, it can be clarified and corrected. For example, you regularly impute things onto me that I think just are not so. I often - though not always - respond to clarify my perspective, often to seemingly no effect. If you still think I am "misunderstanding," then perhaps we can just be okay with that and move on. No need for ongoing lectures and tone policing. Okay. I disagree. I think big ideas and topics are often worth parsing out in ways that I like. While you sometimes (frequently? always?) take that as me missing "the whole picture," I don't think that is the case very often. It's just you making assumptions (and negative ones), or else just grousing about other participants and detracting from discussion of the topic at hand. Again, I don't come here to "socialize" or to "connect." That you and Mustard and others may come here to do that is all fine and dandy, but I would ask that you stop faulting me for not joining. I come here to discuss topics, not me. So in the end, I don't really care to discuss your armchair psychoanalysis of me, your imputing motives to me, your critiques of my writing style and supposed "misunderstandings," your lectures about me and my supposed moral failings ("real connection or concern for the other..." "I go by the rule every man a potential rapist") and whatever. I would prefer that you discuss the topics, not me. There may have been times in the past when there was a sense of camaraderie and conviviality on this board, but those days are, in my view, long gone. I participate here because I am interested in discussing the Church and the Restored Gospel, and particularly to listen to those who have viewpoints on these things which vary from my own, and who are willing to explain their viewpoints. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. I think that could happen. Not sure it will. I don't think so. Polygamy was very different from polycules. The wives were not married to each other. I have elsewhere explained my difficult in viewing marriage as divinely instituted (though in the end, I do believe it). One is mostly about licentiousness and and embedded infidelity, and the other was not. One is not based in sincere religious belief, and the other was. I see a number of differences. I think much has been done to deconstruct and damage marriage as an institution. Severing sex from marriage. Severing sex from children. Severing marriage from God. Severing marriage from children. Radically re-defining marriage. Thanks, -Smac

That's a fair question. I think the members of the Church genuinely believed that they were following God's law. Eventually they stopped, but only after much pressure and tribulation and - in my view - revelation. I think that can be a reasonable inference, but I'm not sure I can competently speak as to God's expectations on this matter. I think God commands us to do, or not do, certain things. Broadly and overwhelmingly, these things are congruent with the laws of the land. There can, of course, be exceptions. Like most Christian traditions, Latter-day Saint teaching can perhaps accommodate the idea that if a civil law directly conflicts with a clear command of God, God’s command takes precedence (classic biblical examples include Daniel, Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego, and the apostles in Acts 5:29, and then there are the "Jews in the Attic"-style questions). This principle was explicitly invoked during the polygamy period, when Church leaders and members argued that plural marriage was a divine commandment that superseded anti-bigamy statutes until the 1890 Manifesto discontinued the practice. To my knowledge, there is no other comparable episode in which the Church as an institution promulgated or practiced a general divine command for members to disobey civil law. So polygamy was very much an outlier, perhaps comparable to Abraham's Sacrifice. Why not? Isn't this situation a moral dilemma? Obey God or obey the law of the land? If secular law prohibits a moral thing (hiding Jews from the Nazis), or compels an immoral thing (disclosing the whereabouts of Jews to the Nazis), then people of good conscience have and can run into this sort of problem. The Fugitive Slave Act. Jim Crow. Apartheid. Some good historical examples of this. Apart from polygamy, I can't think of a time when this has happened to the Latter-day Saints. Happy to consider examples. I think folks like you and Mustard often impute motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold or harbor. I think disagreement is often construed as not "listening." I think nuanced answers and assessments are sometimes seen as evasive. Sometimes, though, the question suffers from the "complex question fallacy" (also known as the fallacy of many questions, plurium interrogationum, or a loaded question), which occurs when someone asks a question that builds in an unproven, disputed, or false assumption. A direct "yes" or "no" (or any straightforward reply) forces the respondent to inadvertently agree to the hidden claim. I think I try to answer directly and honestly and clearly in most circumstances. I have attempted that here. Thanks, -Smac

Under our system of laws, no. However, "should have been given" is passive. Who is doing the giving? The citizenry (through their elected representatives)? The U.S. Supreme Court? Questions of First Amendment-based religious liberty were, at the time, in their infancy. Indeed, Reynolds v. United States is a seminal case on this topic. We must assess matters of law, to some extent, by the milieu in which they exist, which makes "should have"-type questions difficult to answer. That said, the SCOTUS reasoning still seems apt (from Wikipedia) : 100+ years later, SCOTUS in Employment Division v. Smith In my view, this element of the law was, and is, correct and necessary. Subjectively, yes. We each must do what we think is right. Yes. I give the same grace to the Saints as I do to the larger populace at the time. They were each doing what they thought was right. Thanks, -Smac

Again, the question is sort of vague. "Wrong or right" in what sense? Legal? Equitable? Moral? God's law? Gut feeling? Legally, the Feds could and did enforce these laws, so that was "right" in a legal sense, but the laws themselves had provisions which I think were fundamentally wrong (disenfranchisement of women's votes) and the enforcement mechanisms were quite punitive (physical mistreatment of my GG-Grandfather), and I see both of these as "wrong." If you are asking me about "right" or "wrong" relative to God's perspective, I don't know that I can speak to that. I believe God commanded the early Saints to practice polygamy, and I also believe that we are "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (AoF 1:12), and also that "no man {should} break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land" (D&C 58:1). In (very) rare circumstances, these two principles can come into conflict. When they do, I'll leave such matters to the Lord. Thanks, -Smac

Your question was somewhat vague. Except there was a law against polygamy. It was legislated, signed into law, and later ruled constitutional. Social norms are uneven as far as whether they reflect "right" and "wrong." Broadly they do, but I think there are a lot of exceptions. I think we need to address the situation as it existed, rather than through some hypothetical. The interactions between Federal actors and the Church and its members were, after all, based on the law. A summary from Grok (in response to "The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862), the Edmunds Act (1882) and the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) were passed for what purpose(s)?") : As a produce of its time, I can understand why this law was passed. I don't have a solid sense of how much of the anti-Mormon sentiment at the time arose from matters other than polygamy, but I think most of the animus arose from that. This would have been proper. The Supremacy Clause and all that. I think this was more problematic, as it was directed more at the institution and less at the individuals participating in polygamy. And these measures were As a Latter-day Saint, I view the federal anti-polygamy statutes (the Morrill Act of 1862, the Edmunds Act of 1882, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887) as lawfully enacted and upheld as constitutional by the courts of their day. Whether the same results would obtain under contemporary free-exercise doctrine is an open question (there were a lot of rumors about the Mormons back then, and distances and communication limitations and whatnot created a pretty nasty rumor mill back east), but evaluating historical legislation solely by present standards risks the presentism fallacy. I have substantial reservations about the extent to which these laws sought not merely to prohibit plural marriage but to punish or dismantle the institutional Church itself. At the same time, the practice of polygamy was genuinely and deeply repugnant to the broader American society of the nineteenth century. To the degree the laws were motivated by religious animus rather than neutral public-policy concerns, their legitimacy is, in my view, diminished. Nevertheless, a functioning society cannot rest on individual “only if I agree” compliance with the law. Absent truly extreme circumstances, citizens are generally obligated to obey the law of the land. I therefore distinguish between de jure and de facto assessments. As a matter of law, the statutes were valid enactments, though certain enforcement mechanisms—test oaths, wholesale disenfranchisement, and related disabilities—were themselves wrongful. As a matter of fact, many of the measures taken under these laws were unduly punitive and harsh. See, for example, this information (compiled by my dad about my great-great grandfather, Alexander F. Macdonald) : Clearly, Alexander was not threatened although he was treated cruelly by his 7th Regiment captors. Thomas Ackley, another military officer recorded in his journal how Alexander Macdonald, sleeping in the guard house hall, exhausted after the long march from Provo, was nearly murdered by an imprisoned soldier. Walking into the room with his ball and chain, “One of these fellows let his iron ball drop, . . . intending for it to strike the Mormon in the head, and would have killed him had it not been that he threw up his arm to save himself, but broke his arm.” (The diarist later identifies the injured man as Alexander Macdonald who was denied medical treatment for his broken arm.) Ackley later expressed amusement at observing Macdonald and other prisoners working “. . . with large sacks of sand tied to them, others with large logs of wood strapped to their backs for punishment. . . . .” Later Alexander was confined to small adobe room, barely large enough for him to stand, and with only a small pile of straw as bathroom facilities. A frantic Elizabeth tried to visit him and bring him bedding and food, but she was turned away. One of the officers had Macdonald brought to his quarters at night to secretly teach him the doctrines of Mormonism. Alexander later told his wife that the young captain believed the teachings but feared that joining the church would jeopardize his military career. Eventually the Army was embarrassed into releasing A.F. Macdonald and he returned to his wife and sons in Springville. Hard to characterize this form of enforcement of the law as "right." Contemporary accounts, such as the above account (arbitrary arrest, prolonged imprisonment under armed guard, physical abuse resulting in a broken arm, and degrading confinement), illustrate excesses that rendered substantial portions of the enforcement morally wrong. Thanks, -Smac

Under the laws of the land in place at that time, the actions against the Church were broadly lawful. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862), the Edmunds Act (1882) and the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) were all valid federal laws at the time and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. That said, my understanding is that the general current and retrospective consensus describes the anti-polygamy campaign of the 1880s as a form of religious persecution that used Congress’s territorial power to force a minority faith to renounce a distinctive practice as the price of institutional survival and political normalization. So that is fairly problematic. Also, some of the enforcement measures were selective and extreme, and that is also problematic. Thanks, -Smac