LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[happyhummingbird]

Oh really? Could you tell us, please, when that law went into effect?

Actually, I can, give me a few minutes.

He may also have made the statement, but the newspaper and its masthead was exactly as I described it. Unfortunately, my only picture of it is in a book; if I could find it online, I'd post it.

You mean this one?

(Found here)

I think you missed my point.

Oh really?

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, I can, give me a few minutes.

I'll save you the time. In 1882, Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which declared polygamy to be a felony. It was not illegal in 1852. There were no laws whatsoever against it.

You mean this one?

(Found here)

No. As I already stated, in addition to the words in question, it had a picture of an American flag, a beehive (representing the people of the Utah territory), an eagle (a symbol of the United States), and a couple of scrolls under the eagle’s outstretched wings. The one on the right, over Joseph Smith’s signature, says, “Given by inspiration of God.” Does the picture you posted have those features?

Oh really?

Yes, really. My point was that people in general are guilty of trying to legislate other people's morality. I wasn't making excuses for the Church's stance on Prop 8. I seriously don't know why you're trying to put me on the defensive for something when I've clearly stated that I do not oppose same-sex marriage. Why don't you save your remarks for someone who opposes it?

 

[happyhummingbird]

Oh really? Could you tell us, please, when that law went into effect?

The LDS pioneers left Nauvoo, Illinois in February 1846 (source). At this time bigamy (which is the beginnings of polygamy) WAS illegal in the states that they lived in. The LDS pioneers left the United States in order to seek 'religious freedom'. They arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. In 1847, the territory that they arrived in (now known as the Utah Valley) belonged to the country of Mexico (source). In February 1848, less then a year (six months and nine days) after the Saints arrived in valley, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Source 2) was signed. In this treaty the US acquired the area known as the Utah Territory, thus becoming part of the United States and all laws, rules and regulations of the United States were applied. Though, at the time, this was not heavily enforced.

In 1862 (sixteen years later), Congress issued the Morrill Anti-Bigamy, which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in EVERY US territory. What is interesting about this little law is the bit of behind-the-scenes wrangling that Brigham Young and then President Abraham Lincoln did. As my source states,
“The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln choose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.”

Not that it makes it any better for the LDS Church to break the law (12th Article of Faith anyone).

And, there is more, the Edmunds Act of 1882 that signed into law that polygamy was a felony in the US. You can also look at the Supreme Court Case Reynolds v. United States, 1878 (source 2) that ruled that, "religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment."

Tell me, when did the LDS Church stop practicing polygamy?​

 

[happyhummingbird]

It was not illegal in 1852. There were no laws whatsoever against it.

I'd take another look.

No. As I already stated, in addition to the words in question, it had a picture of an American flag, a beehive (representing the people of the Utah territory), an eagle (a symbol of the United States), and a couple of scrolls under the eagle’s outstretched wings. The one on the right, over Joseph Smith’s signature, says, “Given by inspiration of God.” Does the picture you posted have those features?

You've repeated yourself three times now. I've provide a picture and two links which don't seem to go with your story.

.

Why don't you save your remarks for someone who opposes it?

Because on something this important and big, I consider you guilty by association. You are paying tithing dollars, fast dollars, etc. to a Church who put money, time and effort into trying (and succeeding) to not allow gay marriages. You are part of a church that had their members give their everything (because of Church teachings) to fund "Yes on Prop 8".

 

[dallas1125]

The LDS pioneers left Nauvoo, Illinois in February 1846 (source). At this time bigamy (which is the beginnings of polygamy) WAS illegal in the states that they lived in. The LDS pioneers left the United States in order to seek 'religious freedom'. They arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. In 1847, the territory that they arrived in (now known as the Utah Valley) belonged to the country of Mexico (source). In February 1848, less then a year (six months and nine days) after the Saints arrived in valley, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Source 2) was signed. In this treaty the US acquired the area known as the Utah Territory, thus becoming part of the United States and all laws, rules and regulations of the United States were applied. Though, at the time, this was not heavily enforced.

In 1862 (sixteen years later), Congress issued the Morrill Anti-Bigamy, which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in EVERY US territory.

What is interesting about this little law is the bit of behind-the-scenes wrangling that Brigham Young and then President Abraham Lincoln did. As my source states,

“The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln choose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.”

Not that it makes it any better for the LDS Church to break the law (12th Article of Faith anyone).

And, there is more, the Edmunds Act of 1882 that signed into law that polygamy was a felony in the US. You can also look at the Supreme Court Case Reynolds v. United States, 1878 (source 2) that ruled that, "religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment."

Tell me, when did the LDS Church stop practicing polygamy?

1. Ever heard of off topic?
2. Interesting your trying to discredit the LDS church using polygamy which could be similar to todays homosexuality treatment.

 

[dallas1125]

I
Because on something this important and big, I consider you guilty by association.

You know that guilt by association really is pointless? Why dont we hold all the German citizens during WWII as guilty of war crimes?

 

[happyhummingbird]

1. Ever heard of off topic?

Katzpur asked me a question, I answered. If you are going to call me out on off-topic, you logically need to call her out as well or you can and will be considered biased and playing favorites.

2. Interesting your trying to discredit the LDS church using polygamy which could be similar to todays homosexuality treatment.

Pardon? If you are trying to infer that polygamy being illegal and homosexual marriage being illegal are similar, you are right on only a very small, basic level. Polygamy has been illegal the entire time, yet a vote (in our wonderful country) could have brought it forth to be voted on, such as been done with homosexual unions. What is different is that people have voted to let homosexuals marry, they haven't voted to let polygamous couples marry.

Once you start bringing it into propositions, laws, etc. and then having other Church's mount campaigns to bring it down, then you are talking similarities. Until then, you just have a church that was breaking the laws of the country.

 

[happyhummingbird]

You know that guilt by association really is pointless? Why dont we hold all the German citizens during WWII as guilty of war crimes?

I didn't say I held all Mormons guilty, nor do I hold all German citizens guilty of the war crimes. Who I do hold guilty are the ones who know/knew and didn't/don't speak up, who don't make a fuss, who do more then just talk about it on the internet, who actually do something about it (e.g. German citizens who hid Jews or Mormons who have publically spoken up about knowing that they could be excommunicated). Not saying that the Mormons who speak up against the LDS Church's stance are anything like German citizens who hid Jews, but I do think you get my point.

 

[dallas1125]

Katzpur asked me a question, I answered. If you are going to call me out on off-topic, you logically need to call her out as well or you can and will be considered biased and playing favorites.

Arent we all biased? Either way, ill call her out to if she is off topic.



Katzpur, please take polygamy issues to a new thread, its off topic.

Pardon? If you are trying to infer that polygamy being illegal and homosexual marriage being illegal are similar, you are right on only a very small, basic level. Polygamy has been illegal the entire time, yet a vote (in our wonderful country) could have brought it forth to be voted on, such as been done with homosexual unions. What is different is that people have voted to let homosexuals marry, they haven't voted to let polygamous couples marry.

My point is that polygamy was illegal because it was against the morals of the day, still is too (to some.) Homosexual marriage is under similar civil right attacks that are going on. So? They voted to let homosexuals marry, why not polygamists marry? Wouldnt it be hypocritical to demad the rights for homosexuals then turn around and tell polygamists that they are immoral?

Once you start bringing it into propositions, laws, etc. and then having other Church's mount campaigns to bring it down, then you are talking similarities. Until then, you just have a church that was breaking the laws of the country.

Yeah, they broke the law. But why should the early LDS have cared? Mexico didnt care what they did. The U.S. was so kind to them in the past. The U.S. started charging them for a crime before the law even existed. Im not sure of the legal jargon but I know that is against the constitution. The LDS had tons of chances to challenge polygamy but they didnt, wouldnt have worked either way. All those christian churches were consipring against that cult out west.

My point is just because polygamy is illegal is no case for denying the right. It has plenty in common with homosexual marriage. They both are looking for civil rights, they are both being denied it, they have taken legal attempts to do it. Although ill admit that the LGBT community is a lot better at it than the FLDS (polygamy, not underage marriage)...

 

[dallas1125]

I didn't say I held all Mormons guilty, nor do I hold all German citizens guilty of the war crimes. Who I do hold guilty are the ones who know/knew and didn't/don't speak up, who don't make a fuss, who do more then just talk about it on the internet, who actually do something about it (e.g. German citizens who hid Jews or Mormons who have publically spoken up about knowing that they could be excommunicated). Not saying that the Mormons who speak up against the LDS Church's stance are anything like German citizens who hid Jews, but I do think you get my point.

You are assuming that we havent taken stances. I have taken a stance up here at my school. All my roommates know what I think about it. Honestly though, you did say you held all mormons accountable. You came out and said you hold her guilty by association. That means you probably hold me responsible in the same way along with anyone else who stumbled upon here. The only difference is that in this case when compared to Germany, we can rally behind those who have stood up. I dont have the time to make my own protest group. Im getting a degree, I donate my money and try to tell everyone my position, and yes including people on the internet. Why do you think I was here, to agree with everything said, or to make my position clear to more people than I can in Idaho.

 

[madhatter85]

Real fast to LDS members, does the church let non-members get married in the meeting houses?

Yes. My wife and I were married civilly in our meeting house (she was not a member at the time)

It can happen where both are non members, Generally I don't think It does for obvious reasons, but there is nothing barring it from happening.

 

[dallas1125]

Delete

 

[dallas1125]

Yes. My wife and I were married civilly in our meeting house (she was not a member at the time)

It can happen where both are non members, Generally I don't think It does for obvious reasons, but there is nothing barring it from happening.

So theoretically, couldnt the church be sued for not letting gay couples get married in the meetinghouse?

This is highly improbable for obvious reasons but I am interested in this possibility.

 

[happyhummingbird]

Wouldnt it be hypocritical to demad the rights for homosexuals then turn around and tell polygamists that they are immoral?

Of course it would be, but I don't see anyone doing that, do you?

But why should the early LDS have cared?

You ever hear of something called the 12th Article of Faith?

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Mexico didnt care what they did. The U.S. was so kind to them in the past.

That's nice and all, but I think you missed the fact that Utah Territory became part of the United States SIX months after they arrived.

The U.S. started charging them for a crime before the law even existed.

Check again.

Bigamy (which is polygamy but with only one extra wife) was illegal in Illinois as early as 1833 with the Illinois Anti-Bigamy Law (Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99). The polygamous marriages started happening (I believe) in the 1840's.

The LDS had tons of chances to challenge polygamy but they didnt, wouldnt have worked either way. All those christian churches were consipring against that cult out west.

Then why didn't they? At least people have the guts to challenge the homophobic laws against two men/two women marrying each other. If you really believe in something (e.g. polygamy), then you should stand up for it.
And, that whole conspiracy thing doesn't really work either. It was illegal, plain and simple.

My point is just because polygamy is illegal is no case for denying the right. It has plenty in common with homosexual marriage. They both are looking for civil rights, they are both being denied it, they have taken legal attempts to do it.

Actually, it is different. You CHOOSE to be a Mormon, you don't really choose to be gay or lesbian. There is a huge difference there.

 

[McBell]

I dont see a parralel at all between the segregation and homosexuality.

Are you serious?
You cannot see that the exact same bull **** excuses that were used to support anti-interracial relationships are being use today against same sex marriage?

That is most unfortunate.

 

[happyhummingbird]

You are assuming that we havent taken stances. I have taken a stance up here at my school.

Have you really? Have you told your bishop that you won't stand for it? Your stake president? Have you gone to rallies? Signed petitions? Done any activist work? You do remember the scripture, "..faith without works is dead?" (James 2:20)

Honestly though, you did say you held all mormons accountable.

Well, if they don't speak up and do something, I will hold them accountable.

You came out and said you hold her guilty by association. That means you probably hold me responsible in the same way along with anyone else who stumbled upon here.

Any LDS member, absolutely yes.

I dont have the time to make my own protest group.

You don't have to, there are plenty.

Im getting a degree, I donate my money and try to tell everyone my position, and yes including people on the internet.

You've donated money to cause strictly to promote gay marriage? That would be a first, it would also mean that you aren't "worthy" to hold a temple recommend. Gotta give it to the LDS Church for making people chose between their religion and their conscious.

Why do you think I was here, to agree with everything said, or to make my position clear to more people than I can in Idaho.

This is just the internet. The people who you interact with everyday, the people in your church, the people around you are the ones who matter. They are the ones voting in your area and helping laws be enacted.

 

[madhatter85]

So theoretically, couldnt the church be sued for not letting gay couples get married in the meetinghouse?

This is highly improbable for obvious reasons but I am interested in this possibility.

It is actually very possible as there is already precedent:
post 2200:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312153-post2200.html

Gay couple wanted to use an area used for religious worship for their wedding, were rejected. they sued the Methodist Church that owned it.

excerpt from link Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR :

The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization’s tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.
Now, with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal firm, Hoffman is appealing the case to state court. He says religious freedom itself is in jeopardy.

 

[happyhummingbird]

So theoretically, couldnt the church be sued for not letting gay couples get married in the meetinghouse?

This is highly improbable for obvious reasons but I am interested in this possibility.

Theoretically, yes.

But we aren't talking theories here, we are talking reality.

 

[McBell]

You really believe that there will be no lawsuits?

Oh, I believe that here will most likely be lawsuits.
However, I also believe that they will be rightfully thrown out.

This irrational fear that some people have that allowing same sex marriage will somehow cause their church to have to marry same sex couples is nothing more than fear mongering.

 

[dallas1125]

Of course it would be, but I don't see anyone doing that, do you?

I thought you were.

You ever hear of something called the 12th Article of Faith?

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

I think you missed the point. Im pretty sure the LDS were not fond of the U.S. back then especially after trying to leave it only to end back up in it. Also considering the extermination order, the murder and rapes. They sure did love the law! Especially as Joseph Smith went to the U.S. President and told him what was going on. Ya know what Van Burens reply was?

Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you; if I take up for you I shall lose the vote of Missouri.

After all they had been through, I wouldnt expect anyone to abide by the laws of this country.

That's nice and all, but I think you missed the fact that Utah Territory became part of the United States SIX months after they arrived.

Yeah and it takes the same amount of time to travel to Utah back then. The LDS did not know about the law until later on.

Check again.

Bigamy (which is polygamy but with only one extra wife) was illegal in Illinois as early as 1833 with the Illinois Anti-Bigamy Law (Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99). The polygamous marriages started happening (I believe) in the 1840's.

Polygamy was not widely practiced in Missouri and Illinois, it became a larger practice when they got to Utah.

Then why didn't they? At least people have the guts to challenge the homophobic laws against two men/two women marrying each other.

They already had been oppressed. They tried to get support from the government but look what they got? Van Buren siding with the oppressors.

If you really believe in something (e.g. polygamy), then you should stand up for it.

They didnt stand up for it? What about the whole history in Illinois and Missouri?

Actually, it is different. You CHOOSE to be a Mormon, you don't really choose to be gay or lesbian. There is a huge difference there.

True, but what is so different between polygamy and sleeping with a different woman who your not married to every night?