Orientalism, Religion And The Law

[Stone holm]

The recent Federal District Court decision on Utah's anti polygamy law expressed an interesting theory that US v Reynolds was based on a no longer acceptable view that non Western civilizations were inferior. The implication was that monogamy mandates are a form of racism. It's an interesting twist, not sure what exactly that implies about early Mormonism. Your thoughts? Unfortunately the case is unlikely to be appealed.

[volgadon]

[Coreyb]

The recent Federal District Court decision on Utah's anti polygamy law expressed an interesting theory that US v Reynolds was based on a no longer acceptable view that non Western civilizations were inferior. The implication was that monogamy mandates are a form of racism. It's an interesting twist, not sure what exactly that implies about early Mormonism. Your thoughts? Unfortunately the case is unlikely to be appealed.

since our national culture no longer seems to believe itself to be "Christian" nor that Christianity is the superior religion and worldview, dismissing polygamy as "Barbarism" does seem silly and bigoted. I don't think there could be any real argument made against it as sexist either if we properly define polygamy as both polygyny and polyandry.

[thesometimesaint]

The recent Federal District Court decision on Utah's anti polygamy law expressed an interesting theory that US v Reynolds was based on a no longer acceptable view that non Western civilizations were inferior. The implication was that monogamy mandates are a form of racism. It's an interesting twist, not sure what exactly that implies about early Mormonism. Your thoughts? Unfortunately the case is unlikely to be appealed.

 

Neither one truly reflects Christian history or heritage.

[halconero]

Polygamous marriages performed in countries where it is legal are recognized in Canada, even though they cannot be performed here. While it could be viewed as an accommodating, "multi-cultural" practice, it actually creates distinctions between a view on Western European marriage and the potentially polygamous marriage practice of many Muslim-majority countries, as well as a few other countries.

 

Monogamous marriage is the only legal form of marriage that may be performed in Canada, though we have our own share of polygamists with European roots. BUT, we'll allow YOUR marriages to be recognized.

 

I would say that it could be linked with Racism. The Republican party of the late 1800's promised to stamp out the "twin relics of barbarism": slavery and polygamy. Barbarism as a term was synonymous with Eurocentric views of any non-European practice or belief. The war on polygamy in the 1800's was very much an ethnic conflict as much as it was a religious one. It was the creation and enforcement of an American cultural orthodoxy as much as it was a religious one.

Edited December 21, 2013 by halconero

[Stone holm]

Polygamous marriages performed in countries where it is legal are recognized in Canada, even though they cannot be performed here. While it could be viewed as an accommodating, "multi-cultural" practice, it actually creates distinctions between a view on Western European marriage and the potentially polygamous marriage practice of many Muslim-majority countries, as well as a few other countries.

 

Monogamous marriage is the only legal form of marriage that may be performed in Canada, though we have our own share of polygamists with European roots. BUT, we'll allow YOUR marriages to be recognized.

 

I would say that it could be linked with Racism. The Republican party of the late 1800's promised to stamp out the "twin relics of barbarism": slavery and polygamy. Barbarism as a term was synonymous with Eurocentric views of any non-European practice or belief. The war on polygamy in the 1800's was very much an ethnic conflict as much as it was a religious one. It was the creation and enforcement of an American cultural orthodoxy as much as it was a religious one.

 

Cultural orthodoxy was very much at the heart of the US v Reynolds decision, but the argument that the orthodoxy involved a rejection of the non-western civilizations of the middle-east, Africa and Asia never occurred to me until I read this recent opinion.  The support of cultural orthodoxy was, ironically, very much a part of the argument made by the Church in its brief in the Prop 8 case.  But, until this recent case, I had never heard it linked to the belief that the non-European based civilizations were inferior due to the fact we believed the races which developed them were inferior.  It also was novel to me to see a Utah statute against polygamy being criticized as being racist -- it is hard for me to imagine that Joseph Smith was much influenced by foreign cultural beliefs, however, given the Hebrews were in fact a middle-eastern ethnicity, I can see that any religion which truly went back to the source would likely have some form of polygamy being recognized.  I suspect as a result, the fact that Mormonism originally allowed for polygamy would be another "truth text".

[halconero]

Cultural orthodoxy was very much at the heart of the US v Reynolds decision, but the argument that the orthodoxy involved a rejection of the non-western civilizations of the middle-east, Africa and Asia never occurred to me until I read this recent opinion.  The support of cultural orthodoxy was, ironically, very much a part of the argument made by the Church in its brief in the Prop 8 case.  But, until this recent case, I had never heard it linked to the belief that the non-European based civilizations were inferior due to the fact we believed the races which developed them were inferior.  It also was novel to me to see a Utah statute against polygamy being criticized as being racist -- it is hard for me to imagine that Joseph Smith was much influenced by foreign cultural beliefs, however, given the Hebrews were in fact a middle-eastern ethnicity, I can see that any religion which truly went back to the source would likely have some form of polygamy being recognized.  I suspect as a result, the fact that Mormonism originally allowed for polygamy would be another "truth text".

 

Agreed!

 

What's even more interesting is the american cultural orthodoxy was and to some extent, still is intertwined with racial and religious overtones and undertones. I wrote a paper this past semester on modern definitions of religion and the practice of civil religion, wherein national ideals are the object of worship and civil salvation, surrounded with national scripture, hymns, pilgrimage sites, and saints.

 

Talal Asad and Bruce Lincoln have both redefined the academic study of religion, and have shifted the Eurocentric, antiqued, view of religion as the belief in the supernatural, to the idea that religion is a set of 1) discourses that claim transcendent and eternal authority, which 2) prescribe practices surrounding the discourse, around which 3) a community is built which follows the practices and adheres to the discourse and is 4) managed by institutions which maintains orthodoxy, exhorts the community to correct belief and practice, and can even change the discourse and practices if needed.

 

Sorry, I'm rambling, but it is relevant to polygamy.

 

It is argued that many states demonstrate a national religion based around ideals, practices, communities and institutions that define the citizen of that nation. My paper argued that Washington D.C. acted as a pilgrimage site, and a spatial unit, in which the american civil religion is expressed, performed and taught. Many of the sites are referred to as temples to the nation (the Lincoln Memorial has a plaque saying so, the National Archives has been referred to multiple times a temple to the sacred texts and history of the American nation), reverence is urged (the Jefferson memorial contains signs asking people to maintain reverence in the memorial), quasi-religious acts take place (the inauguration comes from an old Roman religious practice, is surrounded with prayers, national hymns, oaths, and sermons), and where its saints are honoured and its priesthood ordained.

 

Within several of the monuments and ceremonies an old religious, and even racial ideal is formed.

 

In the capitol rotunda there are two examples I'd like to point out:

 

1) The eight paintings of moments considered definitive in American history. Most deal with the Revolution, but the first two are the baptism of Pocahontas, and the arrival of the pilgrims. Without reading to much into it, it is interesting to note that the history of America is framed by the baptism and Europeanization of the native pagans, as well as the arrival of an independently minded, puritanical, English yeomanry.

 

2) Above this scene is the Apotheosis of George Washington, literally the deification of America's first president. He is enthroned in the clouds with a rainbow at his feet, draped in purple, and surrounded by the Roman goddesses of Liberty and Victory. Around him are other Roman gods and goddesses representing national ideals. He looks down on the baptism of Pocahontas and the arrival of the English Protestants. It is interesting to note that there is no mention of any African-slave, or really any other cultural influence in the DC area until the Lincoln memorial (which itself enshrines his maintenance of the union, rather than the freeing of the slaves).

 

I think this comes together as a small example of how the American national ideals in the first 100 years were derived from Western European, White and Protestant. Polygamy and slavery weren't just affronts to the religious consciousness, but the American cultural, and ethnic ideals.

[Stone holm]

Agreed!

 

What's even more interesting is the american cultural orthodoxy was and to some extent, still is intertwined with racial and religious overtones and undertones. I wrote a paper this past semester on modern definitions of religion and the practice of civil religion, wherein national ideals are the object of worship and civil salvation, surrounded with national scripture, hymns, pilgrimage sites, and saints.

 

Talal Asad and Bruce Lincoln have both redefined the academic study of religion, and have shifted the Eurocentric, antiqued, view of religion as the belief in the supernatural, to the idea that religion is a set of 1) discourses that claim transcendent and eternal authority, which 2) prescribe practices surrounding the discourse, around which 3) a community is built which follows the practices and adheres to the discourse and is 4) managed by institutions which maintains orthodoxy, exhorts the community to correct belief and practice, and can even change the discourse and practices if needed.

 

Sorry, I'm rambling, but it is relevant to polygamy.

 

It is argued that many states demonstrate a national religion based around ideals, practices, communities and institutions that define the citizen of that nation. My paper argued that Washington D.C. acted as a pilgrimage site, and a spatial unit, in which the american civil religion is expressed, performed and taught. Many of the sites are referred to as temples to the nation (the Lincoln Memorial has a plaque saying so, the National Archives has been referred to multiple times a temple to the sacred texts and history of the American nation), reverence is urged (the Jefferson memorial contains signs asking people to maintain reverence in the memorial), quasi-religious acts take place (the inauguration comes from an old Roman religious practice, is surrounded with prayers, national hymns, oaths, and sermons), and where its saints are honoured and its priesthood ordained.

 

Within several of the monuments and ceremonies an old religious, and even racial ideal is formed.

 

In the capitol rotunda there are two examples I'd like to point out:

 

1) The eight paintings of moments considered definitive in American history. Most deal with the Revolution, but the first two are the baptism of Pocahontas, and the arrival of the pilgrims. Without reading to much into it, it is interesting to note that the history of America is framed by the baptism and Europeanization of the native pagans, as well as the arrival of an independently minded, puritanical, English yeomanry.

 

2) Above this scene is the Apotheosis of George Washington, literally the deification of America's first president. He is enthroned in the clouds with a rainbow at his feet, draped in purple, and surrounded by the Roman goddesses of Liberty and Victory. Around him are other Roman gods and goddesses representing national ideals. He looks down on the baptism of Pocahontas and the arrival of the English Protestants. It is interesting to note that there is no mention of any African-slave, or really any other cultural influence in the DC area until the Lincoln memorial (which itself enshrines his maintenance of the union, rather than the freeing of the slaves).

 

I think this comes together as a small example of how the American national ideals in the first 100 years were derived from Western European, White and Protestant. Polygamy and slavery weren't just affronts to the religious consciousness, but the American cultural, and ethnic ideals.

 

Interesting, gave you a bump for this.  It reminds me of a quip by, I believe Henry Adams, to the effect they (meaning his contemporaries) knew not what to do with Washington so they made him a god.  Washington, even during his lifetime, became so revered he was considered to have been the "necessary man" in the establishment of the nation.  When the White House was sacked during the war of 1812, major heroism was attributed to the First Lady for the rescue of the original portrait of Washington.  I suspect that no Christian religion has so emphasized the national myths concerning the Founding Fathers than we have, or so embedded them into our folklore side of religion.  Unfortunately, to do that, we have distorted somewhat the extent of their religious beliefs and piety.  Mistaking references to Divine Providence, etc. to our current notions of God, etc.  They were astounding enough without trying to gild the lily for religious purposes.

[Robert F. Smith]

Agreed!

 

What's even more interesting is the american cultural orthodoxy was and to some extent, still is intertwined with racial and religious overtones and undertones. I wrote a paper this past semester on modern definitions of religion and the practice of civil religion, wherein national ideals are the object of worship and civil salvation, surrounded with national scripture, hymns, pilgrimage sites, and saints.

 

Talal Asad and Bruce Lincoln have both redefined the academic study of religion, and have shifted the Eurocentric, antiqued, view of religion as the belief in the supernatural, to the idea that religion is a set of 1) discourses that claim transcendent and eternal authority, which 2) prescribe practices surrounding the discourse, around which 3) a community is built which follows the practices and adheres to the discourse and is 4) managed by institutions which maintains orthodoxy, exhorts the community to correct belief and practice, and can even change the discourse and practices if needed.

 

Sorry, I'm rambling, but it is relevant to polygamy.

 

It is argued that many states demonstrate a national religion based around ideals, practices, communities and institutions that define the citizen of that nation. My paper argued that Washington D.C. acted as a pilgrimage site, and a spatial unit, in which the american civil religion is expressed, performed and taught. Many of the sites are referred to as temples to the nation (the Lincoln Memorial has a plaque saying so, the National Archives has been referred to multiple times a temple to the sacred texts and history of the American nation), reverence is urged (the Jefferson memorial contains signs asking people to maintain reverence in the memorial), quasi-religious acts take place (the inauguration comes from an old Roman religious practice, is surrounded with prayers, national hymns, oaths, and sermons), and where its saints are honoured and its priesthood ordained.

 

Within several of the monuments and ceremonies an old religious, and even racial ideal is formed.

 

In the capitol rotunda there are two examples I'd like to point out:

 

1) The eight paintings of moments considered definitive in American history. Most deal with the Revolution, but the first two are the baptism of Pocahontas, and the arrival of the pilgrims. Without reading to much into it, it is interesting to note that the history of America is framed by the baptism and Europeanization of the native pagans, as well as the arrival of an independently minded, puritanical, English yeomanry.

 

2) Above this scene is the Apotheosis of George Washington, literally the deification of America's first president. He is enthroned in the clouds with a rainbow at his feet, draped in purple, and surrounded by the Roman goddesses of Liberty and Victory. Around him are other Roman gods and goddesses representing national ideals. He looks down on the baptism of Pocahontas and the arrival of the English Protestants. It is interesting to note that there is no mention of any African-slave, or really any other cultural influence in the DC area until the Lincoln memorial (which itself enshrines his maintenance of the union, rather than the freeing of the slaves).

 

I think this comes together as a small example of how the American national ideals in the first 100 years were derived from Western European, White and Protestant. Polygamy and slavery weren't just affronts to the religious consciousness, but the American cultural, and ethnic ideals.

Thank you, halconero, for an accurate and brilliant summary of some of the most noticeable features of American civil religion -- something which Mormons seldom understand.  I would only add a couple of items:

1. The President is the High Priest of that civil religion, and

2  The Puritans came to America as restorationists -- thus raising the ironic realization of the ultimate result of restorationism taken to its limits by none other than the Mormons (even if they have no idea that they did so).

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting, gave you a bump for this.  It reminds me of a quip by, I believe Henry Adams, to the effect they (meaning his contemporaries) knew not what to do with Washington so they made him a god.  Washington, even during his lifetime, became so revered he was considered to have been the "necessary man" in the establishment of the nation.  When the White House was sacked during the war of 1812, major heroism was attributed to the First Lady for the rescue of the original portrait of Washington.  I suspect that no Christian religion has so emphasized the national myths concerning the Founding Fathers than we have, or so embedded them into our folklore side of religion.  Unfortunately, to do that, we have distorted somewhat the extent of their religious beliefs and piety.  Mistaking references to Divine Providence, etc. to our current notions of God, etc.  They were astounding enough without trying to gild the lily for religious purposes.

I have to confess, Stone holm, that you seem to be right on target in this thread.  Kudos, buddy!!

[halconero]

Thank you, halconero, for an accurate and brilliant summary of some of the most noticeable features of American civil religion -- something which Mormons seldom understand.  I would only add a couple of items:

1. The President is the High Priest of that civil religion, and

2  The Puritans came to America as restorationists -- thus raising the ironic realization of the ultimate result of restorationism taken to its limits by none other than the Mormons (even if they have no idea that they did so).

 

I agree with you entirely. I actually spent a large portion of my paper on the priestly functions and spatial units that encompass the american presidency, but didn't want to belabor my point on here. I can email you a copy if you wish, it's about 10 pages long. 

 

The presidential oath, the nature of the office, the ceremonial functions, and the high moral standard expected of the president is akin to the same standards applied to other heads of religion. I found some interesting tidbits surrounding the Lewinsky scandal in the 90's about Clinton "desecrating" the "sanctum sanctorum" (holy of holies) of the Oval Office by his transgressions with Lewinsky

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree with you entirely. I actually spent a large portion of my paper on the priestly functions and spatial units that encompass the american presidency, but didn't want to belabor my point on here. I can email you a copy if you wish, it's about 10 pages long. 

 

The presidential oath, the nature of the office, the ceremonial functions, and the high moral standard expected of the president is akin to the same standards applied to other heads of religion. I found some interesting tidbits surrounding the Lewinsky scandal in the 90's about Clinton "desecrating" the "sanctum sanctorum" (holy of holies) of the Oval Office by his transgressions with Lewinsky

Thanks, I'd love to see that paper.  I'll PM you with my email address.

In the midst of the American Renaissance, there is no question that the leaders deliberately adopted the best of civic virtue (Greek  arete, Latin virtus), including faith, piety, gravitas, and constancy (Kenneth Minogue, Politics: A Very Short Introduction, 23). Indeed, the U. S.  Senate adopted the name and some of the obvious trappings of its Roman predecessor (auspicia, auctoritas, and bundled consular fasces upon the wall).  Note the Roman Republican motto  Senatus Publiusque Romanum (SPQR) “The Senate and Public which is Rome.”

[Stone holm]

Thanks, I'd love to see that paper.  I'll PM you with my email address.

In the midst of the American Renaissance, there is no question that the leaders deliberately adopted the best of civic virtue (Greek  arete, Latin virtus), including faith, piety, gravitas, and constancy (Kenneth Minogue, Politics: A Very Short Introduction, 23). Indeed, the U. S.  Senate adopted the name and some of the obvious trappings of its Roman predecessor (auspicia, auctoritas, and bundled consular fasces upon the wall).  Note the Roman Republican motto  Senatus Publiusque Romanum (SPQR) “The Senate and Public which is Rome.”

 

During the late 19th and 20th Century there was a movement towards Graeco-Roman architecture in public buildings with the idea that perhaps the symbolism of the buildings would promote civic virtue as the nation tried to move away from the rampant corruption of the late 19th Century.

[Tiki]

Interesting, gave you a bump for this.  It reminds me of a quip by, I believe Henry Adams, to the effect they (meaning his contemporaries) knew not what to do with Washington so they made him a god.  Washington, even during his lifetime, became so revered he was considered to have been the "necessary man" in the establishment of the nation.  When the White House was sacked during the war of 1812, major heroism was attributed to the First Lady for the rescue of the original portrait of Washington.  I suspect that no Christian religion has so emphasized the national myths concerning the Founding Fathers than we have, or so embedded them into our folklore side of religion. 

**** Unfortunately, to do that, we have distorted somewhat the extent of their religious beliefs and piety.  Mistaking references to Divine Providence, etc. to our current notions of God, etc.  They were astounding enough without trying to gild the lily for religious purposes. ****

Wow. You're off base.

So when they appeared to Pres. Wilford Woodruff in the St. George Temple this was our "mistaking their references to Divine Providence to our current notions of God"? Ridiculous. "Divine Providence" is in reference to guidance from God, but our religion has nothing to do with that does it?

Read the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its references to God, Divine Providence, Christians, religion, virtue and morality. Then ask yourself why same sex marriage was legalized there. It wasn't attributed to Divine Providence.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution

[Tiki]

I have to confess, Stone holm, that you seem to be right on target in this thread.  Kudos, buddy!!

Rot.

[Stone holm]

Wow. You're off base.

So when they appeared to Pres. Wilford Woodruff in the St. George Temple this was our "mistaking their references to Divine Providence to our current notions of God"? Ridiculous. "Divine Providence" is in reference to guidance from God, but our religion has nothing to do with that does it?

Read the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its references to God, Divine Providence, Christians, religion, virtue and morality. Then ask yourself why same sex marriage was legalized there. It wasn't attributed to Divine Providence.https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution

Massachusetts was the last State to give up it's established church. Our Church could probably not have been successfully restored there. They appeared before Pres Woodruff after they had died. While living, Jefferson prepared his own edition of the Bible which deleted all references to the resurrection and divinity of Christ, Madison was of similar persuasion as was Franklin. They were all Deists. But, they were also all Freemasons. Massachusetts, however, was originally established as basically theocratic colony, it however changed overtime because of the influx of Catholic immigrants. When the battle over SSM erupted there, then Gov Romney requested an advisory opinion of the Mass high court as to whether a civil union law extending all the rights and privileges of marriage would pass Constitutional muster. The State High Court said no, and likened it to Jim Crow laws. Vermont and New Hampshire both have Common Benefit Clauses in their Constitutions, Vermont in its case ruled that the legislature had to accommodate SS couples but left the legislature to decide. Then Gov. Dean stayed out of the legislative debate, but said he would not be happy if a SSM Bill was laid on his desk for signature. After extensive debate where representatives of both our Church and the Roman Catholic Church testified against any accommodation the legislature adopted a Civil Unions Bill which was signed by the Governor. The SS couples pronounced themselves satisfied and dismissed their lawsuit. However, considerable PR damage was caused by our Church's representative who argued that homosexuality was a disease/ addiction. This caused moderates to become sympathetic to the gays, and after the Prop 8 debacle, the State quietly moved to SSM. Prop 8 played in my opinion a major role in moving the East Coast States away from civil unions and towards SSM, once it became known the amount of money spent by Mormons in getting it adopted. But these New England cases were virtually all decided on State Constitutional grounds, like the original Hawaiian case. A major difference is the difficulty in amending State Constitutions out here as opposed to California and Hawaii, there was virtually zero chance of any attempts to amend the Constitutions out here to ban SSM. Given that several States did adopt Constitutional bans in the initial reaction to the Hawaiian ruling, the battle has shifted to the Federal Courts. This is especially true in States which adopted Constitutional bans and now are stuck with them even though popular sentiment in the State has shifted. In essence, what has happened is that Prop 8 was the victorious legislative battle that ultimately caused the antis to lose the war, that and the fact that none of the dire social forecasts proved true.

[volgadon]

I agree with you entirely. I actually spent a large portion of my paper on the priestly functions and spatial units that encompass the american presidency, but didn't want to belabor my point on here. I can email you a copy if you wish, it's about 10 pages long. 

 

The presidential oath, the nature of the office, the ceremonial functions, and the high moral standard expected of the president is akin to the same standards applied to other heads of religion. I found some interesting tidbits surrounding the Lewinsky scandal in the 90's about Clinton "desecrating" the "sanctum sanctorum" (holy of holies) of the Oval Office by his transgressions with Lewinsky

 

Have you read Eran Shalev's books on the classical and biblical focus of America's founding and early years?

[thesometimesaint]

Wow. You're off base.

So when they appeared to Pres. Wilford Woodruff in the St. George Temple this was our "mistaking their references to Divine Providence to our current notions of God"? Ridiculous. "Divine Providence" is in reference to guidance from God, but our religion has nothing to do with that does it?

Read the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its references to God, Divine Providence, Christians, religion, virtue and morality. Then ask yourself why same sex marriage was legalized there. It wasn't attributed to Divine Providence.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution

 

I am pretty sure Pres. Woodruf knew the Constitution. The Founders were a diverse group in religious matters, including a few Deists and Atheists. Not one was LDS.  However I can find but one oblique reference to God in the US Constitution at the very end with the date(Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven), and two references in it to religion. Both limiting its sphere in government(Article 6 Paragraph 3: ..."but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"." and the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... .).

[halconero]

Have you read Eran Shalev's books on the classical and biblical focus of America's founding and early years?

 

No? Can I find/order them online?

 

Also, I have some short journal articles on Israeli civil religion and pilgrimage if you'd like!

[Stone holm]

I am pretty sure Pres. Woodruf knew the Constitution. The Founders were a diverse group in religious matters, including a few Deists and Atheists. Not one was LDS.  However I can find but one oblique reference to God in the US Constitution at the very end with the date(Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven), and two references in it to religion. Both limiting its sphere in government(Article 6 Paragraph 3: ..."but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"." and the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... .).

I think he was referring to the Massachusetts State Constitution.

[halconero]

Wow. You're off base.

So when they appeared to Pres. Wilford Woodruff in the St. George Temple this was our "mistaking their references to Divine Providence to our current notions of God"? Ridiculous. "Divine Providence" is in reference to guidance from God, but our religion has nothing to do with that does it?

Read the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its references to God, Divine Providence, Christians, religion, virtue and morality. Then ask yourself why same sex marriage was legalized there. It wasn't attributed to Divine Providence.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution

 

I highly doubt whether Jefferson's, Washington's, Franklin's or Adam's religious beliefs would meet the Jesus-loving standard that seems to be required by most American presidents of the modern age.

[Stone holm]

I highly doubt whether Jefferson's, Washington's, Franklin's or Adam's religious beliefs would meet the Jesus-loving standard that seems to be required by most American presidents of the modern age.

 

Not sure if it is a true standard, or required lip service. But clearly they did not fit the "born agains" , nor did they fit the myth that is sometimes dredged up by Church members -- regardless of what their Spirits may have felt after they died.  That may well have been because they were not fired up about the Churches that existed at the time, but to say that they rejected the existing churches and developed some super piety on their own is basically bogus.  The more accurate picture is that they believed in a Creator, but they were motivated by a very deep form of humanism spawned by the Enlightenment.  So I could see them as very interested investigators once the gospel was restored, but I don't see them going to evangelical camp meetings or being terribly enthusiastic about Anglicism or Puritanism. 

[thesometimesaint]

I think he was referring to the Massachusetts State Constitution.

 

He was. However most of the Founders weren't from Massachusetts. Jefferson, Madison, and Washington were from Virginia. Franklin(born in Massachusetts) was from Pennsylvania. Paine was from England. 

[Stone holm]

He was. However most of the Founders weren't from Massachusetts. Jefferson, Madison, and Washington were from Virginia. Franklin(born in Massachusetts) was from Pennsylvania. Paine was from England. 

 

I am not sure what John Adams and John Hancock's religious beliefs were, I doubt that Hancock was very religious -- but don't know.  Yeah, Pennsylvania is the State that originally created the Common Benefit Clause which found its way to Vermont and New Hampshire -- I suspect they were very much in favor of separation of Church and State given the amount of persecution that the Quakers had endured elsewhere.  That is what sort of amazes me that so many Mormons are willing to cast aside separation of church and state, given our history.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not sure what John Adams and John Hancock's religious beliefs were, I doubt that Hancock was very religious -- but don't know.  Yeah, Pennsylvania is the State that originally created the Common Benefit Clause which found its way to Vermont and New Hampshire -- I suspect they were very much in favor of separation of Church and State given the amount of persecution that the Quakers had endured elsewhere.  That is what sort of amazes me that so many Mormons are willing to cast aside separation of church and state, given our history.

 

President John Adams was a devout Unitarian, which was a non-trinitarian Protestant Christian denomination during the Colonial era. John Hancock was Congregationalist. He spoke often and at length about his Christian faith. His father and Grandfather were Congregationalist ministers.

 

That these men at that time in history put aside their religious differences and created a country that values religious belief, but practices a secular form of government still amazes me to this day.

 

I'm for a near absolute separation of Church and State. As my TI in the US Air Force told me. Your soul may belong to God, but your A$$ belongs to me. We LDS do ourselves a great disservice when we mix the two.