| |
|
Saturday, February 21, 2004
|
|
I recently came across a Papal encyclical on marriage ( Encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, meaning "God's wise secret") that covers much of the same ground as the recent LDS pseudo-revelation on the family ( The Family: A Proclamation to the World). The Catholic encyclical was issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1880. It provides a nice contrast in style with the LDS document. The Catholic encyclical contains 45 lengthy paragraphs, with 56 footnotes referencing scriptural texts, Church Fathers, and prior pronouncements of Catholic leaders. The LDS proclamation contains 9 short paragraphs with no footnotes, no references to prior pronouncements, and one scriptural reference (to Psalms 127:3). Here are short excerpts from the Catholic encyclical: [Jesus Christ] bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder (Paragraph 5). The LDS proclamation reads "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."
Marriage was gradually corrupted, however: [A] common custom was gradually introduced, by which it was accounted as lawful for a man to have more than one wife. . . . Moreover, plurality of wives and husbands, as well as divorce, caused the nuptial bond to be relaxed exceedingly. . . . When the licentiousness of a husband thus showed itself, nothing could be more piteous than the wife, sunk so low as to be all but reckoned as a means for the gratification of passion, or for the production of offspring (Paragraphs 6, 7). The LDS proclamation, on the other hand, is actually very careful not to condemn plural marriage. It says "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God," but does not say marriage between a man and several women is not ordained of God. Elsewhere, it uses the phrase "marriage between man and woman," generic terms that admit of a plurality as well as the singular. Of course, Mormons distinguish plural marriage from group marriage: while several women were all married to one Mormon patriarch, that did not mean that the plural wives were also married to each other, somehow legitimating relations between them.
Again, in the very beginning of the Christian Church were repulsed and defeated, with the like unremitting determination, the efforts of many who aimed at the destruction of Christian marriage, such as the Gnostics, Manichaeans, and Montanists; and in our own time Mormons, St. Simonians, phalansterians, and communists (Paragraph 13). Recall that this encyclical issued in 1880, whereas the mainstream LDS Church did not renounce the practice of plural marriage until 1890. Still, I imagine it's a bit of a surprise for most to see Mormons described as having "aimed at the destruction of Christian marriage."
Marriage, moreover, is a sacrament, because it is a holy sign which gives grace, showing forth an image of the mystical nuptials of Christ with the Church. But the form and image of these nuptials is shown precisely by the very bond of that most close union in which man and woman are bound together in one; which bond is nothing else but the marriage itself (Paragraph 24). Monogamous marriage is a symbol of Christ's mystical union with His Church; this mystical and symbolic view of marriage derives from the Bible and is is well established. Ironically, the LDS doctrine of plural marriage, from this perspective, becomes an implicit ratification of God's endorsement of tolerance and religious diversity, and a repudiation of the "one true church" approach to Christianity. That's the nicest take on plural marriage I've ever encountered.
Care also must be taken that they do not easily enter into marriage with those who are not Catholics; for, when minds do not agree as to the observances of religion, it is scarcely possible to hope for agreement in other things. Other reasons also proving that persons should turn with dread from such marriages are chiefly these: that they give occasion to forbidden association and communion in religious matters; endanger the faith of the Catholic partner; are a hindrance to the proper education of the children; and often lead to a mixing up of truth and falsehood, and to the belief that all religions are equally good (Paragraph 43). Like modern Mormons, the Pope here opposed mixed-religion marriages, for many of the same reasons. His Holiness understandably opposes the chartiable and tolerant "belief that all religions are equally good." Funny how religious tolerance, so often held out as one of the finer achievements of "the West" and emblematic of the personal freedoms we enjoy, is a product of the godless secular state. Godless secularism isn't such a bad thing, perhaps.
9:13:01 AM 
|
|
|
|
Thursday, February 19, 2004
|
|
The latest FLDS report on the Religion News Blog is entitled 'We fear another Waco'. It begins: With the authorities in hot pursuit, a Mormon 'Prophet', Warren Jeffs, has gone to ground with his 70 wives - and enough ammo for Armageddon. Andrew Gumbel reports from a community in fear. I don't see a happy ending to this situation, which seems to be spiraling toward some sort of confrontation between the FLDS guru and state authorities.
8:32:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
|
|
More excommunications this week in the FLDS communities of Hildale and Colorado City, according to this recent report at the Religion News Blog. The latest excommicatees were told to leave the church and their homes, often without all of their family members. Only in Utah do people put up with this kind of religious nonsense. If a minister told a Montana resident to pack his bags but leave his kids behind, the reply would be a variation on "me and my AK-47 are just waiting for you to step through my front door." A California resident would say, "Expect a call from my lawyer tomorrow." Why are there still 10,000 people living there? What's wrong with these people? In another recent story, Utah and Arizona authorities returned a 17-year-old runaway girl to her home in Colorado City. A judge dismissed a protective order the girl had obtained against her father, clearing the way for her return to home sweet home. In fairness, the article notes that anti-polygamy activists had anticipated more runaways from the enclave, but thus far only three underage girls, including the girl recently returned, have left. Is that because only three tried to leave or because only three made it to St. George?
11:00:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 26, 2004
|
|
First, this SL Trib article [via the Religion News Blog] reports allegations against the disciplined FLDS member who held a news conference last week. But the quote from the FLDS Church attorney is really choice: "Chatwin's behavior was extremely inappropriate," said Rod Parker, attorney for the FLDS church. "When these people want to get married, they go to church leadership and discuss their desire to be married. When you have a guy like this trying to get them on his own, it's extremely inappropriate." Yes, highly inappropriate. There is also an AP wire service story, summarizing much of what has gone on recently and suggesting there are other FLDS members who plan to come forward with their stories soon. The story features comments from a representative of Help the Child Brides, an organization providing assistance to those leaving polygamous communities and relationships. The personal stories posted on their site make interesting reading.
3:52:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, January 25, 2004
|
|
Recent disclosures from residents of polygamous communities on the Utah-Arizona border are a good corrective for recent weblog articles by Tim ( defending polygamy as an activity that should be protected on libertarian grounds) and by Matt (defending polygamy as an activity that should be allowed on more general grounds). Nothing personal--this question has been a live topic in recent months all over the media, these are just the intereseting arguments I've run across in my little corner of the blogosphere.
After the designated prophet of the polygamist communities disciplined about 20 male followers, one held a news conference to defend his right to remain living in his own home (which technically is owned by the real estate division of the FLDS Church) and remain married to his sole wife. As discussed in a related story, wives of disaffected FLDS members are often 'reassigned' to other, 'worthier' FLDS members. This second article notes: Critics of the polygamist havens predicted the shake-up will prompt a mass exodus of children, mainly girls who fear they will be married or "reassigned" to other families because women and children are considered church property. Additional stories are listed here.
Take the libertarian argument first. Tim opines here that Reynolds was wrongly decided and that it was obviously tailored to uphold a religiously discriminatory law that was passed because people in the east regarded polygamy as morally outrageous. In a different post, he holds that [t]he fact that it is peaceful and consensual and harms no third parties ought certainly to have weighed on the question of whether polygamy really is “subversive of good order,” I would think, but the Court did not think so. But it just won't do to paint polygamy as a harmless, consensual union of three or five or ten adults which should not be regulated or proscribed by an intrustive state. Real-world polygamous societies and communities takes aim at girls well before they reach the age where we generally presume "legal consent" can be granted. The state has both a right and a duty to protect minors whose parents abdicate their duty to act in the best interests of their children. Grooming girls for a life of illegal activity is certainly not in their best interest, whether that illegal activity is prostitution, illegal drug use, or plural marriage. So it's not harmless.
Furthermore, the "permissible because consensual" argument is inapposite to these patriarchal communities that point their daughters toward (illegal) polygamous marriages from birth. Polygamous communities invariably plan and set their sights on teenage and pre-teen girls--the system generates a shortage of marriagable women. If the law won't grant a man charged with statutory rape a consent-in-fact defense, public policy should not recognize the consent-in-fact argument held out by polygamous societies as a justification either. And read this article about teens running away from Hildale and Colorado City--people don't run away from consent, they run away from coercion, so it's debatable whether there's even actual consent in at least some cases. Real-world polygamy, as an institution, looks neither harmless nor consensual. As I see it, you need a different argument. And I didn't even discuss the fact that a community where "women and children are considered church property" appears to be in violation of the 13th Amendment.
More generally, Matt refers to the apparently happy polygamous experience of his great-great-great grandfather, who couldn't have cared less about whether the government condoned his marriage. He was completely satisfied with the religious sealing his marriage received by the priesthood of God. He just wanted the state to leave him alone with his two wives and their children to whom he was faithfully committed. Well, asking the state to leave someone alone who is committing illegal acts is essentially asking the state to condone those acts. So as long as the state retains the power to define and authorize marriage, it can't (or shouldn't) leave men alone with their two wives to live a happy, polygamous life. We're not to the point where the state is obliged to recognize do-it-yourself marriages undertaken in direct violation of applicable law.
Elsewhere, Matt outlines a satirical argument in defense of group and sibling marriage. The post was directed against David Brooks' argument that gay marriage deserves some support if it is likely to channel gays and lesbians into healthy and fulfilling monogamous relationships. It's an odd form of satire--I can't tell whether Matt is arguing in favor of polygamy, against monogamy, or simply against gay marriage. If the thrust of the satire is that monogamy is good but that marriage shouldn't be limited to monogamy, then it's not really an argument against gay monogamous marriage and even comes across as mildly favoring it.
In any case, Matt appears to be speaking directly (rather than in satire mode) when he says there are historical and contemporary examples that convincingly demonstrate that marriage needn't be based on exclusivity to be rewarding. Polygamous, polyandrous and polyamorous relationships aren't monogamous, by definition, but partners can still be perfectly faithful. Faithful to what? To their own definition of marriage or to their own group "relationship," but not to the legal, operative definition of marriage. "Illegal fidelity" doesn't pack much moral punch, I'm afraid. I suppose a hooker and her customer are being perfectly faithful to their short-term relationship if she delivers and he pays, but that fidelity doesn't legitimize prostitution any more than being faithful legitimizes polygamy. Furthermore, journal records suggest many first wives became increasingly unhappy as their Mormon husbands took on additional (younger) wives. So it might have been "perfectly faithful" from the patriarchal man's perspective, but it sure felt like a form of cheating to some of the women, didn't it?
I will post additional links as the Hildale/Colorado City story continues to develop.
12:00:19 AM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
|
|
Come all without, come all within,
You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quinn.
--- Bob Dylan
If that tune doesn't ring a bell, you're probably too young to really understand polygamy, but you can still try. Go read the online copy of D. Michael Quinn's essay entitled LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904 (also here in 10 parts with pop-ups). This article, published in Dialogue in 1985, really blew the lid off of post-Manifesto polygamy.
It also kind of blew the lid off of Quinn's career at BYU, which apparently had not seen nothing like D. Michael Quinn. For a revealing essay on Quinn's experience as a Mormon historian, go read the full online text of his autobiographical essay On Being a Mormon Historian (and its Aftermath), a chapter in a collection of essays entitled Faithful History (Signature Books, 1992).
11:52:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 15, 2004
|
|
Sometimes it seems like polygamists just can't get along with anyone, doesn't it? The Religion News Blog reports that an anonymous letter decries FLDS leader. Sample - The writer of an anonymous letter, sent to 460 households in the twin cities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, says he was told in a dream by God that a false prophet is leading the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I don't suppose that rocks your worldview, but it's certainly big news in Colorado City. Readers of Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven will recall these smallish towns on the southern Utah border as the home of the polygamous FLDS Church, a Mormon schismatic group. Things are hopping down there following the FLDS leader's actions last week excommunicating twenty men and taking away their (largish) families and their (schismatic Mormon) priesthood. See these additional stories, working backwards chronologically: FLDS Carefully Watched, Mayor and Others Ousted From FLDS Church, and FLDS Prophet Thins Flock. Yes, there's a reason the Western world embraces monogamy: it works much better than the alternatives of polygamy or zerogamy (although zerogamy has its advocates).
9:45:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
|
|
 Cast of Three's Company, a 20th century sitcom.
With just a bit of humor, the Salt Lake Tribune reports that [t]hree Utahns who want to live together legally as husband and wife and wife filed suit Monday against Salt Lake County clerks for refusing to issue a marriage license . . . . The Deseret News article on the same story notes that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sanctioned polygamist marriages until 1890, when it abandoned the practice, and has since excommunicated church members who take plural wives. There is no official tally, but some experts say as many as 100,000 people from a variety of religious backgrounds practice polygamy, primarily in the West.
The suit, filed in US District Court, predictably raises a Free Exercise claim and criticizes the 19th century case Reynolds v. United States, but also attempts to argue that Lawrence v. Texas, the recent US Supreme Court case striking down a Texas law criminalizing homosexual relations, supports their challenge. In Lawrence, the Court held that the conduct in question, in the context of the home, was a liberty interest protected under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Courts must now determine whether polygamy now falls under the expanded definition of liberty outlined in Lawrence.
More broadly, the nature of marriage in the 21st century is undergoing reexamination all across the country in recent years: Hawaii, California, Vermont, Massachussetts, even Canada has started to experiment with liberalized marriage laws. It's a popular blog topic, too. From the little corner of the blogosphere I follow, I know of Nate's Covenant and Contract, my Gay Marriage: Contract versus Status, and Tim's Marriage as Contract in the last two months. Change is in the air, but don't expect polygamy anytime soon.
8:45:50 PM
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
|
|
The press has just picked up on the Pennsylvania case of Stanley Shepp, who is attempting to defend his right to teach his Mormon fundamentalist beliefs about polygamy to his 10-year-old daughter over the objections of his ex-wife with whom he shares custody. Here are links to stories on CNN and (for some local flavor) the York Daily Record. On September 29, 2003, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review of the appellate court decision which went against Mr. Shepp. This is not an easy case, as suggested by the well-argued dissent to the appellate decision. Mr. Shepp has been rather active in promoting his beliefs. Here is what purports to be a letter from Mr. Shepp explaining his beliefs at a Mormonism website. Even more interesting, here is a listing showing Mr. Shepp on the Sunstone Conference program from August 8, 2002, delivering a paper entitled "Original Mormonism." He sounds like a Newdow clone, a legal activist using his daughter to push his own minority position, and using the legal system as a public forum for those views while litigating them.
The three judge appellate panel split on the case. The majority noted that the law of Pennsylvania requires that the "best interest and welfare of the child" control the custody proceeding. It distinguished Zummo, the Pennsylvania case holding that "a parent may pursue whatever course of religious indoctrination which that parent sees fit" during periods of lawful custody, apparently swayed by his statements (which the court accepted as factual) to his 14-year-old stepdaughter, deemed a "wife candidate," that she would go to hell unless she followed the doctrines he preached. The legal standard the ex-wife needed to meet was demonstrating to the satisfaction of the court that Mr. Shepp presented a substantial threat of physical or emotional harm to the child. The majority held that she met that standard and upheld the prohibition against the father teaching anything about polygamy, plural marriage, or multiple wives to his daughter.
The majority cited and discussed both Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145 (1878), and Davis v. Beason, 133 US 333 (1890), to support its position, cases you might not expect to be cited as controlling under present free exercise jurisprudence. The dissenting judge, on the other hand, pointed out that Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620 (1996), found Beason to no longer be good law for the question before the Court in Romer, and properly observed that Reynolds does not prevent Mr. Shepp from simply talking to his daughter about his polygamy beliefs. Since the trial court found that "there was no evidence of a grave threat to the child," the dissent would have reversed the limitations on Mr. Shepp's right to talk to his daughter.
There is an interesting discussion of the case over at Times & Seasons.
10:24:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 08, 2003
|
|
There are two competing approaches to gay marriage emerging from state legislatures and courts. First, Vermont is trying civil unions, essentially a contract approach to marriage. Allowing civil contracts as a practical substitute for marriage appears quite workable, and avoids the conservative trigger word "marriage." If the state will enforce a civil union contract, it gives most gays what they seem to want while still reserving traditional marriage for "as between a man and a woman" relationships.
Alternatively, Massachusetts is apparently opening the doors to full-fledged marriage for gays. As I see it, traditional marriage confers a status rather than creating a contract. Traditional marriage is not a contract. Status changes the legal position of the parties beyond merely being subject to the terms of a contract.
For example, minors are subject to certain limitations simply because of their status: besides contracting limitations, they cannot vote, must attend school, etc. (but they can often marry if over 16 with parental permission, despite not being able to form contracts!). That's not a contract arrangement, just a status the law applies to minors that affects their legal standing, rights, and obligations.
Felons are subject to certain limitations. It's a status; not a contractual relationship.
Go back two hundred years: slave was a status category. "Chattel" might appear to be a designation that made some people subject to property laws, but in fact they were humans with a status label, not real chattels. You can't manumit a horse or a chair and make them free persons with legal rights.
Likewise, "married person" is a status, not the consequence of a contractual relationship. A married person gets special tax rates (perhaps better, perhaps worse), gets certain inheritance benefits, may qualify for special immigration or citizenship rights from the government, gets rights as to custody of children and presumption of parentage, etc. The status comes after a voluntary ceremony or visit to the local magistrate, but it's hardly a contract negotiation in either form or substance.
There is no reason the state cannot authorize civil unions (synthetic marriage providing by contract many of the perks or mutual obligations that come with the "married person status") while the parties remain plain vanilla single persons legally, not becoming "married persons." Of course, persons entering into marriage may enter into contemporaneous contracts, prenups, but that's optional and distinct. Historically, consider common law marriage, where states seemed willing to recognize the couple as "married persons" despite the existence of neither an express contract nor a marriage ceremony.
Now here's the kicker that I have heard no one discuss thus far. A well designed civil union contract might offer some benefits that traditional "status marriage" does not. If so, some hetero couples would likely be interested in civil union as opposed to traditional marriage, and they should not be denied access to civil unions--that would raise an equal protection problem. So hetero couples might consider the choice between civil union (contract marriage) and traditional marriage (status marriage). How would simply increasing the options available to all parties make anyone worse off? Seems Pareto-optimal to me, and by not forcing the traditional "marriage" label on civil unions it would defuse much of the conservative opposition.
So if the Massachuesetts courts would just stay out of the process, the Vermont civil union approach could evolve into a workable solution without igniting a new phase of the American culture war.
Note: This approach developed as part of a discussion with my friend Tim after his discussion of a similar topic.
1:32:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, November 20, 2003
|
|
Religion News Blog reports Polygamy rehab plan is boycotted by group. An antipolygamy group is protesting a decision by the Utah Attorney General's Office to include a plural wife in a project to aid women and children leaving the polygamous lifestyle, comparing the situation to inviting a rapist to join an anti-rape group. In a separate story Woman loses custody to "sister wife," the Blog reports the messy details of what amounts to a polygamous custody battle. I find these and similar articles useful for acquiring facts about polygamy as actually practiced in the real world, as opposed to the idealized portrait of polygamy often held out in discussions of its historical practice by LDS leaders in Illinois or Utah. |
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
|
|
An anti-abortion killer's execution is scheduled for Wednesday evening. Paul Hill, a 49-year-old former Prebyterian minister, killed an abortion doctor and his bodyguard outside a Florida abortion clinic several years ago. See how Hill's actions spur Christian debate. Is breaking the law allowed if it futhers God's work or is "commanded" by one claiming to be God's "mouthpiece" on earth? To their credit, most Christians answer no; bombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion doctors is no more justified by Christian belief than is the bombing of civilian buses or office buildings justified by Islamic belief. How Mormons view this touchy topic is shaped by their 19th-century practice and their continued theological defense of illegal polygamy. Why is there no Mormon debate about polygamy? Why don't Mormons sense the moral challenge posed by their illegal practice of polygamy the way Christians sense the moral problem presented by Christians who bomb abortion clinics or shoot doctors? Mormons in the 19th century defended their right to break the law in the name of religion. First, there was Joseph Smith's secret and illegal practice of polygamy in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois in the 1830s and 1840s. Second, there was the continued secret and illegal practice of polygamy by Brigham Young and other polygamist apostles from 1847 to 1852. Third, there was the public and illegal practice of polygamy by apostles and other high-ranking Mormons from 1852 (when it was first publicly admitted that the Church practiced polygamy) through 1890 (when the Church publicly professed to cease the practice). Finally, there was the once-again covert practice of illegal polygamy (on a reduced scale) by Mormon leaders from 1890 to 1904, when the whole charade was finally exposed by the US Senate in public hearings.
Mormons in the 20th century tried to have their cake and eat it too, renouncing the practice of polygamy but continuing to defend it theologically. If this "we believe it but we don't practice it" position seems morally inconsistent to you, I agree. The morally consistent positions are espoused by Mormon fundamentalists ("we believe it and we practice it") and Christians ("we don't believe it and we don't practice it"). The most obvious reason Mormon leaders will not simply renounce polygamy is that to do so would require renouncing Joseph Smith's polygamy revelations, both the public one (D&C 132) and the private ones delivered to young maidens or their families. And once you start renouncing Joseph's revelations, there's no telling where the process would stop. LDS leaders can maintain this rather muddled policy only because rank-and-file Mormons embrace it as well, regarding the whole polygamy episode with a mixture of pride, embarrassment, ignorance, and denial.
Mormons in the 21st century will have to face up to this theological mess, as society moves toward an "anything goes" law of marriage. At some point the US Supreme Court will overrule the 1879 Reynolds case or simply find it unapplicable to the "diversity in marriage" test cases that will certainly be before the Court in coming years. At that point, LDS leaders will be forced to make a clear statement either affirming or renouncing the principle of polygamy. They will finally be forced to choose between Christianity (monogamy) and their own Mormon historical legacy (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and polygamy). The official and unofficial Mormon response to Krakauer's recent book Under the Banner of Heaven shows Mormons have a long way to go before they can talk address the polygamy issue honestly. Right now, Mormons distinguish between the current practice of polygamy by Mormon fundamentalists (bad polygamy) and its historical practice by "mainstream Mormons" in the 19th century (good polygamy). Sorry, that distinction is rooted in denial. That's like distinguishing between "good murder" and "bad murder," exactly the false moral distinction Christians reject when extremists attempt to justify killing abortion doctors (and that Mormons embrace when justifying Nephi's murder of Laban early in the Book of Mormon narrative). Mormonism has more than its share of false moral distinctions. Coming clean on polygamy would eliminate the most glaring of the lot.
11:45:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
|
|
Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven continues to draw media attention, most recently in a short piece highlighting Krakauer in Monday's Seattle Times ("Outdoor Writer Krakauer Examines Violence in Mormon History"). In the article, Krakauer responds to the rather pointed criticism leveled at his recent book by LDS officials and supporters, saying he "felt some of their attacks are really unfair and untrue." Other favorable reviews have been published by the New York Times ("Thou Shalt Kill") and CNN ("New Krakauer Provocative"). Critical reviews include one in the Boston Globe ("Among the Believers," by Terryl Givens, an LDS scholar). The semi-official Mormon response by Richard E. Turley, the Managing Director of the Family and Church History Dept. of the LDS Church, can be found at the FAIR website ("Faulty History").
2:17:08 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Dave's Mormon Inquiry Weblog.
Last update: 3/3/2004; 12:14:02 AM.
|
|
|
