question about "fundamentalist Mormans"?

Question

why shouldnt "fundamentalist Mormans" be allowed to practice polygamy even if it is a religious practice?

Answer 1

Just to add to the perspectives above:

Polygamy was voted illegal by the Edmonds Act in 1862. The Church fought long, hard, and nobly through persecution for over 20 years until the Edmonds-Tucker Act (in 1887, I believe), when polygamy was seen as an act of treason. Finally, in 1890, after the LDS Church was disincorporated and its assets shifted into the custody of the US Government, the Church "subscribed to this notion" and banned polygamy on paper, without threatening any penalty.

Polygamous marriages, however, continued to be performed over the next 20 years. The last prophet to have an active polygamous marriage was Joseph F. Smith, who died in 1918 and left 4 legal, cohabitating wives. This same Smith issued a "Second Manifesto" in 1904, under legal pressure alleging that he wasn't punishing new polygamous marriages that were being performed. This new manifesto (official LDS scripture, in the D&C) was the first LDS publication to threaten excommunication. Finally, in about 1910, two Apostles (Cowley and Taylor) were disfellowshipped for continuing to perform these marriages. It is believed that no NEW polygamous marriages were effectuated after this date, although several notable polygamous couples were allowed to continue living as polygamous families (sex, kids and all) until into the early 1940s when they had nearly all died off.

Now, of course, these generations have all passed on, and the prevailing sentiment now is that the Church voluntarily bowed down to the law of the land, and took an eager initiative in implementing the change. This is obviously not true (see the 28-year delay above), but what would you expect? They wanted the freedom to practice their religion, and weren't about to bend over and take it just because congress voted in a discriminatory bill.

The same applies to the FLDS today. Even as a person who sees polygamy as an evil, corrupt practice, I advocate the FLDS' right to practice their religion freely, and would support a vote of congress to repeal the Edmonds and Edmonds-Tucker acts. If Rastafarians are allowed religious marijuana, then Mormons (at least those that still advocate the practice) should be allowed religious plural marriages.

Edit: Contrary to popular opinion (and for what it's worth), the FLDS are NOT breaking the law. They are only legally married to the first wife. They are sealed to the others without legal marriage proceedings, just like Joseph Smith did in the Nauvoo temple. Plural wives have no tax advantages, cannot apply for joint credit, and are legally single. In fact, the FLDS (except in cases of underage arranged marriage, as cited above by Kia) keep the law of the land to a MUCH larger extent than the LDS people did between 1862 and 1904, since the LDS Church actually held marriage proceedings and drafted legal marriage paperwork.

Answer 2

My answer to your question can best be explained in the same manner that polygamy was declared against the laws of the land when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced it. The practice was voted illegal and unlawful by the U.S. Government and the Church subscribed to that notion. In October 1890, plural marriage was denounced and anyone continuing its practice after a subsequent normal attrition rate faced excommunication from the Church.

So it should be for any Fundamentalist group that wish to practice unlawfully and illegally the concept of plural marriage in the United States. I see it as a double-standard in law enforcement and disobedience to the laws of the land.

I'm not feeling sour grapes because the LDS Church no longer practices plural marriage, but the law is the law and there should be no differentiation.

Answer 3

My awareness of "militant" is purely a accepted term approximately somebody who isn't apprehensive of voicing his critiques and ideas, and performing on them — an opinion which could be stated or uninformed, replaced or no longer under the sunshine of available, verifiable information. In that experience, militants at the instant are not so diverse than activists (the fewer pejorative term). Fundamentalists are very comparable, yet their critiques and ideas are conventional to be unaffected by way of the availibility of observable, verifiable information. In that experience, they are often a much greater extreme risk to society. call atheists militants if this fits you — a flock of sheeps we aren't from now on :) > Why are some atheists "militant" and a few believers "fundamentalists"? isn't "fundamentalist" in basic terms a euphemism for "militant"? .

Answer 4

I think that in most cases it is not so much the polygamy that is the problem as it is the Abuse that is the problem. Most of the modern polygamist groups have histories of abuse. If you watch the news, these people who are being convicted are not being convicted of polygamy. In most cases they are being convicted of abuse and pedophylia type crimes.

Besides right now the law defines marriage as between One Man and one woman. If it is against the law, then it is against the law. Everybody practicing polygamy in the US knew they were breaking the law - when the entered into their "marriages".

Answer 5

The problem with the fundamentalist Mormon beliefs is that the women are totally subject to the males of the group. This creates a situation where abuse of women of all age groups can occur.This was recently brought to light in the trial of fundamentalist leader Warren Jeffs.

Answer 6

Thats the catch-22 about Freedom of Religion... Why can't Rastas smoke all the ganja they want? The government allows certain Native American nations to eat peyote, even though its illegal in the rest of the country.

But I digress... the reason is simple... if they see a ritual or rite as counter to the health of society then they don't allow it. I for one would love me some polygamy.

Answer 7

Because it's against the law. And the way it is being done is wrong. If the practice of it is done right, it would be a good thing, and would make families stronger. The way it is being done there is against the way God wants it done. It is also against God, unless He commands it, and right now, the commandment isn't active.

Answer 8

Mark Surtleff, the Attorney General of Utah has said that he will not go after the FLDS, as long as they stick to adults marrying adults.

Answer 9

No, there's a difference between belief and practice. They can believe it all they want, but if it's against public policy, they have no right to do it.

Answer 10

It's against the law.