Posted on 01/01/2012 4:51:53 PM PST by Colofornian
Already dumped her!
While the libertarian approach sounds good, as conservatives we should look beyond what sounds good, as often there are good reasons for the past policy, in this case the policy of government actively discouraging polygamy.
See the replied-To post by Colofornian for someone the lovely history of Mormonism and polygamy in the U.S. This history highlights some of what actually happens to further and maintain a polygamist system. It isn’t pretty.
It just gets worse..........
Yeah? Well, I saw Jan and Dean live twice, post (the real and tragic) Dean Man's Curve, one when the meds weren't quite working, and once when they were, and heard 'em perform it live. And met 'em.
And I quit counting the number of Beach Boys concerts I've attended when I ran out of fingers (Brian even performed at some), and they sang it at most concerts. Brian Wilson wrote the song (which was called "Good Connie Won't You Come Back Home," or something of the sort, when he was writing it).
And I have the original 45 and multiple original LPs. Feeling cocky now. I'm channeling those nearly three years as a dee-jay in college.
Now. I believe the (beach) ball is in your court.
*Snicker*
That would throw it into federal court, depending on who had the standing to challenge it, because the Utah Constitution says that the prohibition against polygamy cannot be changed without permission of the United States.
The wild card in this would be if a federal court strikes down a polygamy or bigamy law elsewhere on the basis of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Kody Brown and his Sister Wives have filed suit claiming that Utah's bigamy law should be struck down. I haven't read the pleadings, but press reports are it's primarily on Lawrence grounds. Utah's bigamy law (Utah Crim. Code § 76-7-101) doesn't just apply to marriage; it applies to a married person purporting to marry another person or cohabiting with another person. Utah's attorney general says that Lawrence doesn't apply, because Lawrence's privacy (sex between homosexuals) is privacy between two people; polygamy involves children, child custody, alimony, and things that aren't part of the penumbra of privacy. From the viewpoint of legal analysis, a Lawrence-based polygamy challenge in federal court would be a time to break out the popcorn.
From the viewpoint of legal analysis, a Lawrence-based polygamy challenge in federal court would be a time to break out the popcorn.
- - - - - -
It’s terrible of me I know, but I’m kinda hoping for it just for this reason.
LOL, that’s a keeper!
Laz? In 2011, you went from #758 to #753 on my list. It's progress, but you're gonna have to work at it.
I don't know. If a Lawrence-based polygamy challenge is upheld in D.C., the shift in the Jello Belt is going to happen so fast that the San Andreas Fault doesn't stand a chance.
I hope the Freepers in Modesto know how to tread water.
I originally thought I had canceled the post because I wasn’t too sure if the moderator would allow it. I’ve had nothing but positive feedback on it. Thanks .....
Same thing with the Christian Science cult.
LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of elderly women. (It’s a dying cult)
- - - - -
I was very disappointed to discover that Jeanne Cooper and Corbin Bernsen are Christian Scientists. (sorry the elderly woman thing reminded me).
I heard a rumor(?) that the young men were kicked out of the church to keep the ratio of women high. THAT makes sense. the older men do not want any competition. Are there any Chinese LDS groups? Just wondering.
- - - - -
The part about the young men is true. The young men are often kicked out to keep the competition down.
http://thehopeorg.org/boys.html
As far as I know, there are no Chinese LDS-breakoff (polygamist) groups, but there is a small Chinese LDS presence, mostly here in the US and an LDS mission in Hong Kong. The LDS are not recognized in China but expats living there are allowed to meet.
The article stated, however, that the real number was actually closer to 250 "citation needed." I thought that was cute. Here's a PhD, whose books are 50% footnotes to original documents, who is cited as "well, he's a guess." And 250 as the definitive 'actually closer to' figure, "citation needed."
Because you can read anywhere about how the Mormon church is one of the biggest and most active editors of Wikipedia in the world. And it wants the number 250.
So today, I'm back there again, this time to the 1890 Manifesto article (which may have been where I was last night; I'm too lazy to check through *all* of my history and I cleared the cache), and *ping* there's a citation for the 250. Good old Neal Maxwell Institute-approved B. Carmon Hardy.
But that's not why I'm here today.
No.
Somebody's been sloppy with the clean-up on Aisle 4. The very next footnote, 17, is supposed to support the statement that "[t]oday, the LDS Church officially acknowledges . . . 'the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was ... gradual,'", quoting the LDS Church, Gospel Topics: Polygamy (Plural Marriage) (accessed 2011-05-27).
Accessed May 27, 2011. But something's happened since May 27, 2011. And those responsible for cleaning up Wikipedia on behalf of SLC didn't do it. Perhaps because of Warren Jeffs? Gospel Topics: Polygamy (Plural Marriage) has been changed so that any reference to gradual ending has been deleted. It now reads, in toto, with respect to the end of polygamy:
"In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church."
Sometimes it's hard for the left hand to keep track of what the right hand is deleting from history doing. Somebody has rewritten the official lds.org site since May 2011. Rewritten it so that polygamy now officially ended with the 1890 Manifesto, although in May 2011, it only gradually ended after the 1890 Manifesto. What's changed? The Jeffs coverage?
It's also curious. I clicked on the 'edit' button just to see what's required to address some of these . . . curiosities. I don't get a normal Wikipedia message. I find this note:
"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism on Wikipedia."
Oh. A collaborative effort. To improve coverage of Mormonism. It's always key when you're being objective to do it alongside the party you're writing about. I notice the coverage on Wikipedia re Free Republic concentrates on the racism, etc. on this site - but you don't see Wikipedia's coverage of Democrat Underground mentioning racist remarks about Condaleeza Rice, or death threats to George W. Bush, or similar distractions . I wonder if Wikipedia would like to engage in a collaborative effort with FR to improve its coverage of FR?
Wait until the stupid Americans elect one president.
And of course, the Wikipedia article states:
"[T]he prophecy as a whole has never been officially acknowledged or accepted, and it has been repudiated by the LDS Church since 1918."
And yet yesterday someone, I think it was reaganaut, posted all of these official quotes acknowledging and accepting it. Perhaps they didn't acknowledge or accept the WHOLE prophecy.
The source for the statement is a BYU Studies article, of course. And BYU is frequently cited as having the least academic freedom of any university; and BYU fires professors for having or writing academic views that aren't 'faith-promoting." And its professors have their Temple Recommends pulled or are excommunicated or disenfellowshipped (Palmer, Murphy, Quinn, the list goes on) for writing things that aren't 'faith-promoting.' So BYU Studies as research reference?
I don't remember who said "a computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history, with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." I think it also lets you purge history and recreate it faster than Stalin's boys with a photo and an airbrush.
Interesting and not surprising. They locked up history for most of the existence of mormonism until that was broken. Now the next frontier - the internet - is being altered as well to hide history.
Ah, yes, the ‘fruits’ of the (cough) prophet Joseph Smith.
She said number one was the Mormon church, number two was her children. He was number three in terms of importance to her.
- - - -
Yep sounds about right.
Very interesting indeed. So the LDS are in charge of Wiki info about the Morg and sanitizing it. Not surprised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.