Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[wenglund]

The problem with the article is that rather blatant inaccuracies are portrayed as the norm for the church. If that's the kind of perspective gay marriage supporters are coming from, we're never going to see eye to eye on the subject.

Gay marriage supporters need to be accurate in their understanding of us, rather than thinking that faked commercials about Mormon missionaries are somehow a portrayal of what the church is about. Until they want to productively engage in the issue, rather than demonizing those who have concerns about their agendas, I for one am not going to take them seriously.

Good point.

However, accurately understanding and correctly depicting the Church would, among other things, work against the gay agenda.

In order to effectively advance the gay cause requires that advocates and supporters alter the language, prop up straw men, distort the record, hide their true and ultimate or ulterior intents, and mis-direct and obfuscate with propagandistic abandonment.

They have done so masterfully, as witnessed by the growing support (even among vulnerable faithful saints), to where they are now the majority. God help us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 9, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I would be the last to suggest that the Church of Jesus Christ (or that Jesus Christ Himself) should at all be concerned over criticism about how He (that is, Christ) or it (that is, His church) expends resources. However, perhaps the Lord has told the Church and its leaders, essentially, "Okay. We've made our stand. That stand is known well enough by now that continuing to expend resources on it to a great degree when we have so many other things to do simply means that return on resources spent on this so-called 'crusade' forever will diminish from this point on: the more resources we expend, the less the per-dollar (e.g.,) return will be. I asked my servants to raise a voice of warning. They did so. From now on, I'll preach my own sermons."

...that, and perhaps Christ will step back, himself, and let people continue to fill the cup of iniquity until the cup of his indignation is full.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

I would be the last to suggest that the Church of Jesus Christ (or that Jesus Christ Himself) should at all be concerned over criticism about how He (that is, Christ) or it (that is, His church) expends resources. However, perhaps the Lord has told the Church and its leaders, essentially, "Okay. We've made our stand. That stand is known well enough by now that continuing to expend resources on it to a great degree when we have so many other things to do simply means that return on resources spent on this so-called 'crusade' forever will diminish from this point on: the more resources we expend, the less the per-dollar (e.g.,) return will be. I asked my servants to raise a voice of warning. They did so. From now on, I'll preach my own sermons."

When the trenches are over run it is time to back up to the next line of trenches.

[Kenngo1969]

The thing that scares me, though, is that First Amendment Free Exercise clause notwithstanding, and mountain of jurisprudence interpreting that Clause to mean that the government cannot dictate religious practice to churches notwithstanding, eventually, someone's going to be the test case in which the so-called "marriage-equality" tail attempts to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" and "no-sex-outside-of-marriage" dog. By then, how many jurisdictions will have accepted gay marriage? All but one, or all but a handful? By then, how content will a trial court, a federal appeals court, and the U.S. Supreme Court be to leave marriage a state matter? If I were a betting man, I'd wager, "Not very." And if anyone says, "But Ken, thanks to the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court would never attempt to dictate religious practice (vis-à-vis mandating that the church must perform Temple sealings for "otherwise-faithful" gay couples)," I'd say, "But the U.S. Supreme Court already has dictated religious practice generally (and marriage practice specifically) to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)."

[Calm]

Another crusade abandoned and I didn't even get my armor polished or my horses shod. That's what happens when you get old and slow.

I've got to remember to come back and rep you on this one when I get more points for the day...

[Ahab]

The thing that scares me, though, is that First Amendment Free Exercise clause notwithstanding, and mountain of jurisprudence interpreting that Clause to mean that the government cannot dictate religious practice to churches notwithstanding, eventually, someone's going to be the test case in which the so-called "marriage-equality" tail attempts to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" and "no-sex-outside-of-marriage" dog. By then, how many jurisdictions will have accepted gay marriage? All but one, or all but a handful? By then, how content will a trial court, a federal appeals court, and the U.S. Supreme Court be to leave marriage a state matter? If I were a betting man, I'd wager, "Not very." And if anyone says, "But Ken, thanks to the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court would never attempt to dictate religious practice (vis-à-vis mandating that the church must perform Temple sealings for "otherwise-faithful" gay couples)," I'd say, "But the U.S. Supreme Court already has dictated religious practice generally (and marriage practice specifically) to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)."

I see several arguments that could defeat the reasoning of that case as it pertains to temple sealings. First, the sealing part is and can be distinguished from the (time only) marriage part. 2, the sealing part can be rightly called a sealing rather than a marriage. 3, the jurisdiction isn't exclusively in this or any other country, meaning it is universal. 4, we don't do that when a man or woman has a spouse who is still living (in the mortal sphere).

[rockpond]

The thing that scares me, though, is that First Amendment Free Exercise clause notwithstanding, and mountain of jurisprudence interpreting that Clause to mean that the government cannot dictate religious practice to churches notwithstanding, eventually, someone's going to be the test case in which the so-called "marriage-equality" tail attempts to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" and "no-sex-outside-of-marriage" dog. By then, how many jurisdictions will have accepted gay marriage? All but one, or all but a handful? By then, how content will a trial court, a federal appeals court, and the U.S. Supreme Court be to leave marriage a state matter? If I were a betting man, I'd wager, "Not very." And if anyone says, "But Ken, thanks to the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court would never attempt to dictate religious practice (vis-à-vis mandating that the church must perform Temple sealings for "otherwise-faithful" gay couples)," I'd say, "But the U.S. Supreme Court already has dictated religious practice generally (and marriage practice specifically) to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)."

I think our solution to this is that we just move to what is being done in other countries around the world: the civil marriage takes place outside the temple and the religious ordinance of the sealing remains under control of the Church.

[Kenngo1969]

I think our solution to this is that we just move to what is being done in other countries around the world: the civil marriage takes place outside the temple and the religious ordinance of the sealing remains under control of the Church.

Forgive me, but I fail to see how that addresses the scenario I raised: two gay people, who consider themselves devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ (in every way but one ... cough-cough chastity cough-cough) and are already civilly united/civilly married, now desire, as devout members of the Church, to have their union solemnized in one of the Church's Temples. The Church refuses. Our couple sues. A trial court rules in the couple's favor. The Church appeals. An appeals court (Ninth Circuit, anyone? ) upholds the trial court's ruling. The Church again appeals. Because most churches (all but one?) now marry gay couples, and because gay marriage is the law in most states (all but one?) a now-liberal U.S. Supreme Court also upholds the lower courts' ruling.

How does separating the sealing and the civil ceremony solve that problem?

[rockpond]

Forgive me, but I fail to see how that addresses the scenario I raised: two gay people, who consider themselves devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ (in every way but one ... cough-cough chastity cough-cough) and are already civilly united/civilly married, now desire, as devout members of the Church, to have their union solemnized in one of the Church's Temples. The Church refuses. Our couple sues. A trial court rules in the couple's favor. The Church appeals. An appeals court (Ninth Circuit, anyone? ) upholds the trial court's ruling. The Church again appeals. Because most churches (all but one?) now marry gay couples, and because gay marriage is the law in most states (all but one?) a now-liberal U.S. Supreme Court also upholds the lower courts' ruling.

How does separating the sealing and the civil ceremony solve that problem?

Sorry, I misunderstood your hypothetical...

I guess if the first amendment fails us then we're either in "white horse prophecy" time or we get Official Declaration 3.

[Stone holm]

Forgive me, but I fail to see how that addresses the scenario I raised: two gay people, who consider themselves devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ (in every way but one ... cough-cough chastity cough-cough) and are already civilly united/civilly married, now desire, as devout members of the Church, to have their union solemnized in one of the Church's Temples. The Church refuses. Our couple sues. A trial court rules in the couple's favor. The Church appeals. An appeals court (Ninth Circuit, anyone? ) upholds the trial court's ruling. The Church again appeals. Because most churches (all but one?) now marry gay couples, and because gay marriage is the law in most states (all but one?) a now-liberal U.S. Supreme Court also upholds the lower courts' ruling.

How does separating the sealing and the civil ceremony solve that problem?

I don't have this abiding fear. While it is true that U.S. v Reynolds is a case that all Americans should be deeply concerned about, the notion that at some point the Court is going to step in and start ordering the Church to perform religious rituals is a bit stretched. Although the Proclamation on Family may well have been written in order to clearly state our doctrinal position on the matter in order to put our Constitutional shield securely in place. Unfortunately, we used a U.S. v Reynolds type argument in the brief before the Court. The problem with our having given a specific nudge from the general church pulpit for those anti-gay activists organising the Prop 8 assault was that we went beyond merely stating our doctrinal opposition to gay marriage and entered into the political fray to impose our definition on others who do not share our beliefs. And, because we were no longer in a religious forum we stretched to find quasi secular arguments to support our side. Those arguments turned out to be offensive not only to the opposition, but also to those who were somewhat in agreement with our view. The result was we got lumped with a lot of rather unsavoury right wing groups and made out to be much more bigoted than we actually are. So now everybody knows that we don't approve of gay marriage, and we now are in transition mode to say hey look we have a doctrinal problem with gay marriage, but we really aren't the cold hearted ideological bigots that we sounded like or with whom we were temporarily allied. Which is maybe a sound strategy, but unfortunately it's harder to stop a Crusade, than it is to start one. So for example you may have quietly and tacitly say manuvered a compromise policy into place which allowed you to disengage the BSA from the ongoing culture war but leave you free to control your internal policy, but your ground forces are still seeking blood and a local council made up predominantly by true believers derails it, so you wind up endorsing a different policy that keeps the controversy alive and keeps you in the target sights of the media.

[Daniel2]

I don't have this abiding fear. While it is true that U.S. v Reynolds is a case that all Americans should be deeply concerned about, the notion that at some point the Court is going to step in and start ordering the Church to perform religious rituals is a bit stretched. Although the Proclamation on Family may well have been written in order to clearly state our doctrinal position on the matter in order to put our Constitutional shield securely in place. Unfortunately, we used a U.S. v Reynolds type argument in the brief before the Court. The problem with our having given a specific nudge from the general church pulpit for those anti-gay activists organising the Prop 8 assault was that we went beyond merely stating our doctrinal opposition to gay marriage and entered into the political fray to impose our definition on others who do not share our beliefs. And, because we were no longer in a religious forum we stretched to find quasi secular arguments to support our side. Those arguments turned out to be offensive not only to the opposition, but also to those who were somewhat in agreement with our view. The result was we got lumped with a lot of rather unsavoury right wing groups and made out to be much more bigoted than we actually are. So now everybody knows that we don't approve of gay marriage, and we now are in transition mode to say hey look we have a doctrinal problem with gay marriage, but we really aren't the cold hearted ideological bigots that we sounded like or with whom we were temporarily allied. Which is maybe a sound strategy, but unfortunately it's harder to stop a Crusade, than it is to start one. So for example you may have quietly and tacitly say manuvered a compromise policy into place which allowed you to disengage the BSA from the ongoing culture war but leave you free to control your internal policy, but your ground forces are still seeking blood and a local council made up predominantly by true believers derails it, so you wind up endorsing a different policy that keeps the controversy alive and keeps you in the target sights of the media.

I think this is THE most insightful post I have EVER read in the 10 years I have frequented this discussion board. Bravo, and thank you.

Daniel2

Edited May 10, 2013 by Daniel2

[EllenMaksoud]

This sickening issue is a test for the faithful. The faithful work hard to be faithful to Heavenly Father while at the same time working hard to determine the causation and cure or societal accommodation in areas where we eventually increase understanding. It is painfully obvious that there is a solution to these issues that define our purpose before Heavenly Father.

We all know that over the entirety of human history that what has defined us is the killing and suffering of those who are not like the majority. It used to be thought that there was only Male and Female, (XY and XX) but now even the most casual student can find out that there are thousands of combinations between those two extremes.

I do not think that the end times are eminent, but rather we are left to struggle with the things that confound us, make us hate, and make us at times less than the least animals. I do not yield one bit when it comes to the laws that Heavenly Father has given us.

I also know that these gay, lesbian and transgender people are our sons and daughters, cousins and aunts. I have been approached by those who are in tears who are Mormons and troubled with these problems. I think that if anyone will find the etiology of these problems and find equitable solutions, it will be the Mormons among us that are scientists and researchers and doctors and nurses.

To me it is maddening that we stand around moralizing when we should be working to help and save our loved ones.

[Stone holm]

This sickening issue is a test for the faithful. The faithful work hard to be faithful to Heavenly Father while at the same time working hard to determine the causation and cure or societal accommodation in areas where we eventually increase understanding. It is painfully obvious that there is a solution to these issues that define our purpose before Heavenly Father.

We all know that over the entirety of human history that what has defined us is the killing and suffering of those who are not like the majority. It used to be thought that there was only Male and Female, (XY and XX) but now even the most casual student can find out that there are thousands of combinations between those two extremes.

I do not think that the end times are eminent, but rather we are left to struggle with the things that confound us, make us hate, and make us at times less than the least animals. I do not yield one bit when it comes to the laws that Heavenly Father has given us.

I also know that these gay, lesbian and transgender people are our sons and daughters, cousins and aunts. I have been approached by those who are in tears who are Mormons and troubled with these problems. I think that if anyone will find the etiology of these problems and find equitable solutions, it will be the Mormons among us that are scientists and researchers and doctors and nurses.

To me it is maddening that we stand around moralizing when we should be working to help and save our loved ones.

Although I don't believe that the Church should ever recognize gay marriage in a religious sense since it clearly is inconsistent with our basic structural doctrine, my tendency is to think that we fumbled our approach to this we should have stayed in the religious forum and treated it strictly as a doctrinal issue and then concentrated on the transition to a new world. My problem was with our approach, not our position.

[Buzzard]

"Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal."

Gee, what a presumptuous and borderline bigoted statement, that marriage is by it's "very nature a sacred obligation", and that society is literally built upon it. Who would have the nerve to say that the government should be involved with something sacred-or in other words, religious? Well, only the SCOTUS. The above quote is lifted from "Reynolds vs. U.S.", the decision that upheld the criminalization of polygamy. It would be such good karma (excuse the Hindu reference) if that case was used to uphold the rights of states to bar same sex marriage.

[KevinG]

While I do not thing the LDS Church serves itself by overt political activity I also do not think we are obliged as an institution, local units or individuals to shut ourselves out of the public discourse on cultural norms and community standards.

The LDS Church involvement in Proposition 8 is not as widespread or deep as our critics presented and our current position is not as changed from our previous position as they think.

I greatly dislike the church and the BSA being used as playing pieces and scapegoats in others social agendas.

I would not have believed any slippery slope arguments about the Government requiring churches to recognize various forms of marriage or the BSA being forced to accept Atheism and Homosexuality as a policy but then I keep hearing about Catholic and Christian institutions being forced to provide abortion services against the beliefs of their owners, Scouts being denied access to public facilities available to other groups, boycotts of Chick-fil-a for supporting a pro-heterosexual marraige camp and foundation, etc.

I think the slope from acceptance to forced advocacy has gotten slipperier in my lifetime and it does not reassure me that compromising on community standards received reciprocal respect from advocates of radical change.

Edited May 10, 2013 by KevinG

[Robert F. Smith]

The thing that scares me, though, is that First Amendment Free Exercise clause notwithstanding, and mountain of jurisprudence interpreting that Clause to mean that the government cannot dictate religious practice to churches notwithstanding, eventually, someone's going to be the test case in which the so-called "marriage-equality" tail attempts to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" and "no-sex-outside-of-marriage" dog. By then, how many jurisdictions will have accepted gay marriage? All but one, or all but a handful? By then, how content will a trial court, a federal appeals court, and the U.S. Supreme Court be to leave marriage a state matter? If I were a betting man, I'd wager, "Not very." And if anyone says, "But Ken, thanks to the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court would never attempt to dictate religious practice (vis-à-vis mandating that the church must perform Temple sealings for "otherwise-faithful" gay couples)," I'd say, "But the U.S. Supreme Court already has dictated religious practice generally (and marriage practice specifically) to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)."

Yes, Reynolds is the thing that everyone forgets in this entire matter, although I think that there is little likelihood that the Orwellian nightmare you suggest here could ever come true. And that is because the gay decisions and gay movement will lead to the reversal of Reynolds. There is, however, something else which the overturning of Reynolds (coming now like a fast freight) portends: The legalizing of a wide array of non-traditional marriages, including polygyny. I'm not suggesting that mainstream LDS will adopt that old practice, but many others will, including any Muslim Americans who so choose. The upshot is that the breadth and range of "marriage" practice in the USA will create a kind of anarchy and instability in our once homogeneous polity. What then?

[Stone holm]

Yes, Reynolds is the thing that everyone forgets in this entire matter, although I think that there is little likelihood that the Orwellian nightmare you suggest here could ever come true. And that is because the gay decisions and gay movement will lead to the reversal of Reynolds. There is, however, something else which the overturning of Reynolds (coming now like a fast freight) portends: The legalizing of a wide array of non-traditional marriages, including polygyny. I'm not suggesting that mainstream LDS will adopt that old practice, but many others will, including any Muslim Americans who so choose. The upshot is that the breadth and range of "marriage" practice in the USA will create a kind of anarchy and instability in our once homogeneous polity. What then?

I agree that Reynolds is likely to be overturned eventually. Even before I began investigating the Church, I found its logic flawed and dangerous to religious liberty in general. It's continued survival has been, I think dependant on the fact that there has not been a clean polygamy case that did not involve either some type of fraud, involuntary or under aged conduct. I believe that many groups, not just the gays are looking to find some type of alternative to the increasingly unstable traditional couple with a nuclear family. Exactly where that instability is going to lead us I don't have a clue, but unless we start seriously addressing the underlying economic causes of the collapse of the traditional family instead of blaming it on various minority groups, I do not see a very bright future for the traditional family in America.

[Damien the Leper]

What a worthless article containing much misinformation. The persons all sides mentioned in the article don't mean much about anything concerning the issue. The media and church organizations who are "pitted" against each other need to stop whining, playing the victim and just move on. I don't understand why Mayne was consulted. He is one of the last people I would bother with.

[Ahab]

Dabakis says that there are still many points of disagreement. "I don't think the church has given one iota on gay marriage—maybe they never will—and neither have we. On the other hand, we have found a lot of commonalities that we can work on," he says, pointing towards the joint efforts to help homeless kids.

Well, one thing on this is for certain, and that is that we're not going to change our stance on SSM.

The opposition has 2 choices. They can either change their mind and heart on this issue or they can't keep trying to change our minds and our hearts. Our minds are already in the right place, though, and so are our hearts as we continue to try to help them.

[EllenMaksoud]

Although I don't believe that the Church should ever recognize gay marriage in a religious sense since it clearly is inconsistent with our basic structural doctrine, my tendency is to think that we fumbled our approach to this we should have stayed in the religious forum and treated it strictly as a doctrinal issue and then concentrated on the transition to a new world. My problem was with our approach, not our position.

And, I believe that the church takes a kinder more compassionat approach to gays and lesbians than many I have experienced. I know there is lots of genetic and brain science research going on in this area, and in time, I would expect the LDS church to begin to implement changes in policies based on scientific fact. I hope that I do not need to go clear back to flat earth belief, or the nonsense that surrounded those with Hansen's disease. We are what we are presently, but someday we will know what causes gays and lesbians and be able to make doctrinal changes if nessessary, or not.

I believe that most people are appallingly, abominably ignorant of issues which we have scientific fact that refutes Doctrinal policy. I am not going to write specifically on my own situation because of the constraints of my Bishop. Humans are pretty good at sorting out those who do not match and excluding them, when In fact those excluded have done nothing wrong. In my opinion, the LDS church is far less hurtful in this area than other cultures that I have experienced.

[Stone holm]

And, I believe that the church takes a kinder more compassionat approach to gays and lesbians than many I have experienced. I know there is lots of genetic and brain science research going on in this area, and in time, I would expect the LDS church to begin to implement changes in policies based on scientific fact. I hope that I do not need to go clear back to flat earth belief, or the nonsense that surrounded those with Hansen's disease. We are what we are presently, but someday we will know what causes gays and lesbians and be able to make doctrinal changes if nessessary, or not.

I believe that most people are appallingly, abominably ignorant of issues which we have scientific fact that refutes Doctrinal policy. I am not going to write specifically on my own situation because of the constraints of my Bishop. Humans are pretty good at sorting out those who do not match and excluding them, when In fact those excluded have done nothing wrong. In my opinion, the LDS church is far less hurtful in this area than other cultures that I have experienced.

I don't see any change in the doctrine as very likely as Eternal Marriage goes to the very core and structure of Mormonism. I do see, however, the Church pushing for greater compassion if the Science eventually demonstrates that this is some kind of physical compulsion over which the person has no control and for which there is no "fix". I believe I discern movement in that direction already. Our doctrine, however, sets us apart from other Christian denominations -- I suspect if the Science becomes more or less irrefutable, that all but the ultra conservative fundamentalist Christian churches will eventually change their doctrine that it is a sin and try to forget that they ever thought otherwise -- kind of like most no longer believe in possession by demons. For us, however, there is no such easy road -- we just stick to our doctrine and quit being in your face with the discrimination.

[Calm]

if the Science eventually demonstrates that this is some kind of physical compulsion over which the person has no control and for which there is no "fix".

Do you mean internal attraction or actual 'external' sexual interaction when you say "physical compulsion"? Edited May 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[EllenMaksoud]

I don't see any change in the doctrine as very likely as Eternal Marriage goes to the very core and structure of Mormonism. I do see, however, the Church pushing for greater compassion if the Science eventually demonstrates that this is some kind of physical compulsion over which the person has no control and for which there is no "fix". I believe I discern movement in that direction already. Our doctrine, however, sets us apart from other Christian denominations -- I suspect if the Science becomes more or less irrefutable, that all but the ultra conservative fundamentalist Christian churches will eventually change their doctrine that it is a sin and try to forget that they ever thought otherwise -- kind of like most no longer believe in possession by demons. For us, however, there is no such easy road -- we just stick to our doctrine and quit being in your face with the discrimination.

Agreed. Gay and lesbian couples can not procreate. That begs the question that with 7 billion people on earth, do we need more procreation. I am open to the idea of an end times scenario, but also think it could be a bit of escapisim caused by the fact that human future on earth is so very uncertain, what with rogue asteroids, earth quakes, and hubris driven wars.

What if Heavenly Father means to allow us to stay hooked on the horns of our own petard until we become more sensible humans?

[Ahab]

And, I believe that the church takes a kinder more compassionat approach to gays and lesbians than many I have experienced. I know there is lots of genetic and brain science research going on in this area, and in time, I would expect the LDS church to begin to implement changes in policies based on scientific fact. I hope that I do not need to go clear back to flat earth belief, or the nonsense that surrounded those with Hansen's disease. We are what we are presently, but someday we will know what causes gays and lesbians and be able to make doctrinal changes if nessessary, or not.

I believe that most people are appallingly, abominably ignorant of issues which we have scientific fact that refutes Doctrinal policy. I am not going to write specifically on my own situation because of the constraints of my Bishop. Humans are pretty good at sorting out those who do not match and excluding them, when In fact those excluded have done nothing wrong. In my opinion, the LDS church is far less hurtful in this area than other cultures that I have experienced.

The key point to keep in mind is that there is nothing wrong with feeling a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.

Okay, well, and another key point to keep in mind is that we should keep our sexual relations within the bounds the Lord has defined.

Even people who are attracted to people of the opposite sex need to exercise restraint and good judgment.

[Bob Crockett]

I agree that Reynolds is likely to be overturned eventually.

I don't think so. Reynolds was the Court's first decision regarding the Free Exercise clause, and it did its best to distinguish between mere belief and criminal behavior. One cannot smoke peyote in the context of a religious ceremony.

In one of my published pieces, I point out that one of the Justices on the Reynold court was Justice William Story. He was President of the U.S. Bible and Tract Society (or something like that) and was one of the national proponents of a constitutional amendment to make the United States a Christian nation. At one point during the national push to get that amendment signed, the amendment was amended to outlaw the Catholic faith. This amendment, as amended, was a plank in the Republican platform for a time.

When the Church was disincorporated and its assets put into a trust, women lost the franchise, and Mormons were put to a test oath, Republicans led the charge. Congress and the President sent overseers to Utah who were evangelicals, including some pastors. There were a few who stood up against this in Congress; hated Jews and Catholics, in the main. It took Reed Smoot to swing Utah voters towards the Republican Party.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Bob Crockett