Slippery Slope

Sexiest Girl Alive

Who started it ???  Was it Antonin Scalia or Sick Rantorum?  Somebody started it.  Scalia told us (in Romer v. Evans) that we should harbor spiteful feelings against polygamists because they are comparable to murderers or animal abusers.  Rick Scrotorum (then Pennsylvania senator) carried on the slippery slope lament perpetuated by James Dobson in 2004 (read here).

Dobson premonished the day when, as a result of Lawrence v. Texas, "daddies" would freely molest their little girls, and men will copulate with their donkeys.  One thing would lead to another. 

This argument is at best confused.  Lawrence simply made it no longer criminal for gays to breathe and walk free.  Remember that some states (post-Bowers) required people who discovered themselves to be gay to go the police station and register themselves as sex offenders.

Remember that, until last week, Utah's polygamists were de facto felons, criminal for their mere existence.  So, if you follow the Santorum slope, we will devolve irreversibly into bEstiality (NOT BEASTiality !!) as soon as gays can wed, and polygs can avoid prison. 

What these slippery slope exponents forget is that if there truly are people out there who ardently crave sex with their donkey or pet goat, they have probably been steaming up the barn for years already, irrespective of obscure SCOTUS decisions (e.g. DOMA, Prop' 8).  Understanding this, Santorum had better join the farm vice squad and focus on rigorous enforcement of man/beast chastity.

The "slippery slope" argument appeals to the low IQ voter - the person who thinks that if a gay person gets a marriage license, his neighbors will conduct orgies in their basements, and naive Christians will start dating ewes.

The LDS Church spent millions (of its members' contributions) on preventing gay marriage licenses in Hawaii and California - - petrified of the slippery slope.  Its ensuing, ill-fated victories are now coming back to haunt the Mormons.  The Church's PR machine has the foresight of a small goldfish or Chicken Little.

Rest assured, at least 76 countries criminalize homosexuality.  In Iran, it will cost you your life.  If that feels better for you, go live there!  In Iran, prostitution is a crime, so johns "marry" the hookers for the duration of the trick, and then get a "divorce" on the way out of the brothel. Legislating morality is at best a waste of energy and at worst a political deception.

For more on the slippery mind of Santorum, read this.

Newsflashes: - the New Mexico supreme court just ruled in favor of gay marriage, and Canada just legalized prostitution nationwide.  If you want to fix a country's problems, focus on outlawing usury banking.  That way, people will be free and rich and mind their own business.

It's an IQ thing

Today, a federal district court judge struck down Utah's Amendment 3 (the one that declared nothing but a marriage between a man and a woman to be legally admissible).  Christmas came early this year for both the gays and the polygs.

This is big news.  The judge (Robert Shelby) effectively legalized gay marriages in Utah.  By now, (late evening 12/20/2013) already hundreds of gay Utahns have tied the knot (legally).  Read this Salt Lake Tribune article.

Already opponents of gay marriage have cried out in protest - many of them LDS or Christian believers who see this ruling as the virtual end of the world as we know it.  How could an activist judge trample on the state's rights like this?  Don't these judges understand that marriage has always been between "a man and a woman" and that the Bible condemns homosexuality?  Surely the courts should agree that children are best raised in a home with a mommy and a daddy?

These questions expose a deep IQ deficiency.  These people seem to have damaged brains - perhaps from sniffing too much glue or paint brush solvent.  Why are people so stupid?

Legal marriages are a modern innovation.  Religious nuptials go back as far as Adam and Eve.  Adam and Eve didn't go and apply for a marriage license.  When state governments started issuing licenses to prospective spouses, they created a secular scheme of taxation and control, independent of churches.  A government marriage is no more religious than a hunting license.  You wouldn't dare deny a hunting license to a gay guy, so why would you deny him a government marriage license?  Churches can marry whom they want.  They cannot issue work visas to immigrants.  People seem utterly incapable of distinguishing between a religious rite and a government license.

I have listened to the opponents of gay marriage.  They worry that America's children won't grow up in a two-gender-parent home, and that this will ruin them.  Of all the anti-gay-marriage arguments, this one is the most compelling.  However, it is a worthless argument.  If a lesbian couple has an eight-year-old child (from one of the two women), what will be the harm to that child if the women are granted a state marriage license? NONE !!!

The trend is inexorable. The courts are acknowledging over and over that the 14th Amendment demands "equal protection" (or application) of laws for EVERYONE.  Whether or not you like what the 14th Amendment did to this country (turned it into a corporation), we are stuck with it. Gay marriage is soon to be legal nationwide.   Utah is the last place one might expect to embrace gay marriages, but that ship has now sailed.  The state's chief legal officials are appealing frantically.  The Mormon Church is apoplectic.  The sky has fallen. 

They are wasting their time.  Resisting the inevitable is stupid.  It's an IQ thing.  Some people just have really low IQs, and there's nothing you can do about it.  Perhaps if they wait a couple of months, they might just realize that nothing bad will happen.

Quitcherbitchin !!!

Wait, You Forgot Something !!

I don't know how we missed this. I mean - there's no mention of it in the Brown decision.  Everybody seems to have forgotten about it. 

A few years back, in his relentless campaign against our culture, Snortleff cooked up this cunning idea to target us further.  His battle cry was always about "the children" and the abuse he believed was rampant in our communities.  Well, he wasn't wrong about Warren Jeffs.  Warren Jeffs was having group sex with young tweens and teens. He should be killed.

Convictions of Tom Green and Rodney Holm demonstrated the State's ability to target adult polygamists, but their partners were (in some cases) minors. The "adult" bigamy statute (merely a third-degree felony) didn't give Sharkleff all the teeth he wanted.  He hit upon the idea of a "Child Bigamy" statute.  He convinced the Utah state legislature to go along with the plan.  With little resistance the bill passed, and it is now law.  Here is the language of the statute:


76-7-101.5. Child bigamy -- Penalty.
(1) An actor 18 years of age or older is guilty of child bigamy when, knowing he or she has a wife or husband, or knowing that a person under 18 years of age has a wife or husband, the actor carries out the following with the person who is under 18 years of age:
(a) purports to marry the person who is under 18 years of age; or
(b) cohabits with the person who is under 18 years of age.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1) is a second degree felony. 

I always had problems with this move.  The "adult" bigamy statute was broad and vague enough to ensnare any polygamist, but Sharkleff had to have more. 

The first problem is that the statute singles out a religious minority for disfavorable treatment.  Why? - because if a 20-year-old guy with a wife takes a 17-year-old as a second "wife", he will serve 15 years in prison, whereas if it's just a "girl-friend"(/adultery) situation, the law must look the other way.  What determines whether the guy walks free or does 15 years is his religion.  If he is a Fundamentalist Mormon, he's done for!

The second problem is that paragraph (b) would make me a second-degree felon if my family lived in Utah.  I "cohabit" with my kids who are minors. They live in my houses.  "Cohabit" is too vague and ill-defined.  You'd have to put half the state in prison.

The fourth problem is that, despite having opportunities to use the statute on some of Utah's truly bad polygamists, law enforcement never used it.

The fourth and BIGGEST problem is that Waddoups just struck down the "cohabits" language from Utah's (dumb) adult bigamy statute, so this one is therefore equally doomed.

Maybe it won't matter.  Maybe the voiding of one statute will result in the voiding of the other one(s) spawned by it.  We'll see.

76-7-101.5. Child bigamy -- Penalty.
(1) An actor 18 years of age or older is guilty of child bigamy when, knowing he or shehas a wife or husband, or knowing that a person under 18 years of age has a wife or husband, theactor carries out the following with the person who is under 18 years of age:
(a) purports to marry the person who is under 18 years of age; or
(b) cohabits with the person who is under 18 years of age.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1) is a second degree felony. - See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/utah/title-76/chapter-07/76-7-101-5#sthash.KkpWJRxE.dpuf

76-7-101.5. Child bigamy -- Penalty.
(1) An actor 18 years of age or older is guilty of child bigamy when, knowing he or shehas a wife or husband, or knowing that a person under 18 years of age has a wife or husband, theactor carries out the following with the person who is under 18 years of age:
(a) purports to marry the person who is under 18 years of age; or
(b) cohabits with the person who is under 18 years of age.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1) is a second degree felony. - See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/utah/title-76/chapter-07/76-7-101-5#sthash.KkpWJRxE.dpuf

76-7-101.5. Child bigamy -- Penalty.
(1) An actor 18 years of age or older is guilty of child bigamy when, knowing he or shehas a wife or husband, or knowing that a person under 18 years of age has a wife or husband, theactor carries out the following with the person who is under 18 years of age:
(a) purports to marry the person who is under 18 years of age; or
(b) cohabits with the person who is under 18 years of age.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1) is a second degree felony. - See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/utah/title-76/chapter-07/76-7-101-5#sthash.KkpWJRxE.dpuf

To Appeal Or Not To Appeal

Utah Governor Gary Herbert

I'm not a lawyer, though I play one in my dreams.  I'm also not a politician, so I won't be going to hell.  Nevertheless, I want to look more closely at the question of whether the future Attorney General of the pretty, great state of Utah should or will appeal the decision in Brown v. Buhman which decriminalizes my polygamous brethren in Utah.

First, an appeal would require a good attorney.  When Laura DuPaix defended the state in the Holm case, she blubberingly argued with Chief Justice Christine Durham that Rodney Holm was in fact married to Ruth Stubbs, even though there was no legal marriage in place between them.  If the state cannot find anyone smarter than her or Jerrold Jensen to plead before the 10th Circuit, it should quit while it is behind.

Secondly, an appeal would, in this case, be a bizarre legal anomaly, because the gist of it would be as follows:

 "Dear 10th Circuit justices, Judge Clark Waddoups recently decriminalized polygamy in Utah.  Utah vehemently disagrees with the ruling and wants the polyga-bigamy statute reaffirmed.  These evil, criminal polygamist outlaws must not be permitted in our State.  We have said before that we have ABSOLUTELY no intention of EVER prosecuting any of them, we just desperately want you to restore the law so that we can go back to calling them criminals and so that we can feel better." 

Thirdly, Waddoups spent many pages of his published Brown ruling demonstrating how racist and reprehensible the Reynolds decision was.  For the 10th Circuit to reverse him in Brown, it will have to come out in full support of Reynolds, an opinion which should have died 100 years ago along with Davis v. Beason (1890) ( - denied Mormons' voting rights) and Late Corp. (also 1890) - in which the court said: 

"The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world."  [to hell with Church/State separation! {R.O.}]

Those two odious rulings faded into ignominy without ever needing to be overturned.

Fourthly, the new AG may perhaps not win on appeal.  Yesterday's evisceration of Utah's bigamy/polgamy ban, applies ONLY to Utah.  If a 10th Circuit appeal were to fail, then the decision would reach at least many of the other western states that have also somewhat half-heartedly prohibited polygamy. A subsequent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court could result in the voiding of Reynolds nationwide and the end of all anti-polygamy laws.  I wonder if the LDS Church(/Gary Herbert) really wants to take such a risk.

Fifthly, if a 10th Circuit appeal resulted in the reversal of Waddoups, Utah would find itself in the same asinine situation in which the province of British Columbia, Canada, now finds itself.  Chief Justice Robert Bauman issued hundreds of pages of contortions in his ruling that polygamy must continue to be criminalized in Canada - the main argument of which was that polygamy is "inherently" harmful - - it hurts Canadians - just like knives and automobiles do.  I semi-sincerely expected the RCMP to raid Winston Blackmore's and Jimmy Oler's homes the next day and incarcerate them.  On the contrary, the reaffirmation of the law (SB-293) has not resulted in any indictments - so the the whole thing was a joke.  I'm sure that B.C. realizes that if it goes after a polygamist, the whole appeal process will likely start all over again.  

If Utah won a reversal of Brown on appeal, it would face the same absurd dilemma.  If it were to flex the claws of the reaffirmed statute (and its anti-cohabitation prong), it would be obligated to go straightway over to Joe Darger's house in Herriman and arrest Joe, Alina, Vicki and Valerie Darger (not to mention the Brown tribe in Las Vegas).  After all, Joe has confessed numerous times to felony bigamy on television and in his book, Love Times Three.

There is the $39,000 question - would Utah still doggedly refrain from prosecuting polygamists, or would it start a new round of convictions, imprisoning ten thousand religious cohabiters?  How would that go over with the liberal public?  Is there enough prison space?  Are there enough foster families?  Or would Javert lose his bloodlust and jump off a bridge into the Seine?

If I were Jonathan Turley, I would be champing at the bit to go to Denver and take a second whack at Utah's corrupt Attorneys General before the 10th Circuit.

Again, this is an exquisite dilemma for the governor, the Church, and the next A.G.  I trust they will approach it with a minimum of wisdom, compassion and inspiration.

Here's The Thing: -

Here's the thing - -

The State of Utah has no attorney general right now.  The last two, Bishop Swallow and Shark Murtleff, are both being investigated by the feds for fraud and corruption. The latter made it his mission to exploit polygamists for political gain.  The former says he comes from polygamy and has nothing but warm feelings for its practitioners.  Either way, technically, their future successor is duty-bound to defend Utah's laws and appeal today's (12/13/13) ruling from the District Court striking down the cohabitation prong of Utah's idiotic bigamy statute.

But here's the thing - judge Waddoups' decision is so well reasoned and so constitutionally sound, that any appeal will be an uphill battle.  Since virtually none of the facts is in dispute, the only controversy is whether or not the language and execution of the bigamy statute are legally sound.

Waddoups voids the "cohabitation" prong as operationally unsound because by the nature of its enforcement it singles out a religious minority for disfavorable treatment (AND because it ignores the freedoms reiterated by the 2003 Lawrence decision).

More importantly, however, Waddoups takes his scalpel to the heart of Utah's polygamy foes by attacking the centerpiece of their arguments - compelling government interest.  Utah's bigamy statute defenders argue that the higher courts must not apply any heightened or strict scrutiny to the bigamy statute because it was framed under a clearly "rational" basis - namely the compelling state interest of protecting the institution of monogamous matrimony in Utah.  Aside from the fact that that argument is silly (does the fact that gay people walk Utah's streets injure the Judeo-Christian institution of holy matrimony?), Waddoups reminds us that since more than ONE of the Browns' constitutional liberties have been hurt, the review standard is driven by the "hybrid rights" doctrine developed in Employment Division v. Smith. Simply put, when both your 14th Amendment (due process) and 1st Amendment (free exercise) rights have been harmed, the level of scrutiny required of the appellate courts is now HEIGHTENED scrutiny.  Turley and Waddoups articulated no fewer than six constitutional harms inflicted upon the Browns by the statute and its enforcers. This means that the state can no longer cower behind the pathetic rational-basis argument about protecting traditional marriage at the expense of the Browns' freedoms.

Thus the court(s) has a duty to take a good hard look at the spirit and effect of the statute and to see if it survives constitutional analysis.  Kody Brown has four ladies.  He sleeps with all of them.  Many Utahns can be said to have done the same thing, just not calling their partners "wives".  Prosecuting Brown for using the wrong word violates his free speech liberties - not to mention his freedom of association and right to equal protection under the law.

Here's the thing - - I invite Utah's next AG to take a swing at the decision in the 10th Circuit.  Waddoups has covered every base in his 91 pages.  Any appeal has to draw on a strong legal argument refuting Waddoups and demonstrating the critical merits of criminalizing religious polygamists.  I submit that it cannot be done.  No self-respecting 10th Circuit jurist would dare disagree with one paragraph of Waddoups' ruling.

Think of it this way - - millions of Americans are deeply resentful of gay marriage.  Their religious sensitivities are mortified at its proliferation.  However, when you get right down to it, the anti-gay-marriage arguments are all groundless and emotional.  My favorite one is the one asserting that children do best when raised in a two (-gender) -parent home.  That makes a lot of sense.  The problem is that you cannot compel that.  If two lesbians are already raising a kid, it is unlikely that that kid's upbringing will deteriorate simply because the two mothers get a legal marriage certificate.  The argument falls apart.

Same thing with plural marriage.  Utah has had tens of thousands of polygs for 150 years.  Traditional monogamous matrimony cannot be demonstrated to have suffered as a result.  There is no rational way to argue that it has.  Perhaps monogamous marriage has suffered FAR MORE as a result of people getting divorced.  Yet the government makes no attempt to outlaw divorce.

So, I say to Gary Herbert and his prospective AG nominee, "Have at it!  Send Jerrold Jensen or Laura DuPaix to Denver to argue that polygamists hurt Utah by existing, and that they all need to go to prison.  See how far you get with that!"  The principal reason (and Waddoups observed this) why these arguments fall flat is because they are tendered in bad faith.  These AG lackeys have NO DESIRE to prosecute polygamists, they just want to wag the moralistic finger of LDS piousness to menace an unpopular minority.  Waddoups saw through it.

All the more delicious is the fact that Waddoups is a home-grown BYU graduate who finally saw through the hypocrisy and bigotry, and dared to buck the trend.  I almost wonder if he isn't going to get pulled in by his Stake President and threatened with disfellowshipment for making the LDS Church look (even more) like a fool.

See you in Denver, Laura.
--------------------------------

Polygamy Decriminalized - 12/13/13

http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/brown-summary-judgment-decision.pdf

It's Friday, the 13th.  Word came to me tonight that Judge Clark Waddoups just ruled in favor of Kody Brown in his challenge of Utah's bigamy statute.

I have dreamed of this day since I was very young.  I have many Utah friends who have lived for years under the specter of prosecution for felony bigamy, simply because they have several partners.

This is the very step which can finally get the Reynolds decision overturned.  Stay tuned.

Here is today's post from Jonathan Turley who argued the lawsuit in behalf of the Browns:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Court Strikes Down Polygamy Law In Utah

Published, December 13, 2013 Constitutional Law , Courts , Criminal law , Free Speech , Lawyering , Media , Politics , Religion , Society , Supreme Court 15 Comments

 

It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clarke Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. The Brown family and counsel have spent years in both the criminal phase of this case and then our challenge to the law itself in federal court. Despite the public statements of professors and experts that we could not prevail in this case, the court has shown that it is the rule of law that governs in this country. As I have previously written, plural families present the same privacy and due process concerns faced by gay and lesbian community over criminalization. With this decision, families like the Brown can now be both plural and legal in the state of Utah.  The Court struck down the provision as violating both the free exercise clause of the first amendment as well as the due process clause.   The court specifically struck down language criminalizing cohabitation — the provision that is used to prosecute polygamists.  The opinion is over 90 pages and constitutes a major constitutional ruling in protection of individual rights.

The decision affects a far greater range of such relationships than the form of polygamy practiced by the Browns. It is a victory not for polygamy but privacy in America. I wish to thank our legal team including our local counsel, Adam Alba, my students like Geoff Turley, my assistant Gina D’Andrea, and the many others who have assisted us through the years. I must also thank Judge Waddoups who showed remarkable principle and integrity in rendering this decision. This law has been challenged dozens of times in state and federal court over the many decades. It took singular courage to be the first court not only in this country but any recorded decision to strike down the criminalization of polygamy. In doing so, Judge Waddoups stood against prejudice and considerable hostility toward plural families. In a single ruling, he reaffirmed the wisdom of our Framers in creating a court with life tenure and independence under our constitutional system.  While the Supreme Court is often credited with the recognition of basic rights, it is often forgotten how the true profile of courage is found among those lower court judges who stood against prejudice and anger to follow the rule of law. It will be an honor to defend this  decision in any appeal by the State and we are prepared to do so as far as the Supreme Court to protect this legal breakthrough.

My final thanks is to the Brown family which has endured years to threats and investigation to bring this day about. They have secured for plural families the equivalent of Brown v. Board of Education in breaking through centuries of prejudice. They have also guaranteed that the promise of privacy recognized for same-sex couples in Lawrence v. Texas will also be extended to plural relationships. In recognition of the importance of this civil liberties case (and contrary to the statements of state officials), the Brown have made little reference to the case on their TLC show so not to distract attention from the merits of the case. They have earned this historic victory and both my respect and gratitude.

With this decision, abuse of spouses and children will continue to be prosecute regardless of whether they occur in monogamous or polygamous families. These protective services will only be strengthened now that many families can openly integrate into society and not fear prosecution merely because of their family structure.

The court struck down that part of the statute that criminalized co-habitation between consenting adults — allowing plural families to step out for the first time in their communities and live their lives openly among their neighbors.  What remains of the statute was narrowly construed by the Court to limit future prosecutions to traditional bigamy, i.e. individuals with multiple marriage licenses.

This historic ruling is a hard-won victory that will be defended with equal vigor in the coming months. If the State (as previously stated) intends to fight for this pernicious law on appeal, we will be prepared and honored to defend this ruling.  Accordingly, as we argued, the state can only prohibit and prosecute ”bigamy in the literal sense—the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage.”

Kody Brown issued the following statement on the ruling:

The entire Brown family is humbled and grateful for this historical ruling from the court today. Like thousands of other plural families, we have waited many years for this day. While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs. Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs. There are so many families who have waited for so long for this ruling and, on their behalf, we can only say: thank you, Judge Waddoups, for your courageous decision. We want to particularly thank our lead counsel Professor Jonathan Turley who represented us through the criminal investigation and then led the fight against this law. We also want to thank the team of lawyers and students from George Washington, including our local counsel Adam Alba. We are so honored and blessed to have been able to serve as the vehicle for this milestone ruling. Professor Turley has pledged to defend this decision on appeal and we are equally committed to fight to preserve this great victory.

Finally, many have asked what the next step will be. The Utah Attorney General’s office previously stated that they would defend this law on appeal. If that remains their intention, they will have a number of options. They can seek a reconsideration from Judge Waddoups. Such motions are rarely granted in an opinion that has been written with such care as this one. Alternatively, they can go directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. They will have to file notice of appeal with the Court and the matter will be put on a briefing schedule. Given the limited trial record, such an appeal could proceed without significant delay if the Utah Attorney General remains committed to an appeal. Once filed, the case will shift from Salt Lake City to Denver Colorado.

For the moment however we are all savoring this great victory that has come after such a long period of criminalization. This struggle began with the approval of the Enabling Act in July 16, 1894 when Congress made the outlawing of polygamy a condition for statehood. Utah has achieved something equally important today: true equality of its citizens regardless of their personal faiths or practices. It is a moment in which all Utahans should take pride and celebrate not in the name of polygamy but of privacy. So congratulations to the Browns and to the people of Utah on a truly momentous day.

Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel
Here is the opinion: Brown Summary Judgment Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get Your Story Straight!

I am pasting the entire text of this Salt Lake Tribune article below, so that you can fathom for yourself what makes sense.  I have also highlighted the link to the LDS Church's recent announcement.

What I find interesting is the strategy.  The Church has faced immense criticism for its prior ban on ordaining blacks.  The current position must inevitably be that the ban was wrong and not directed by God.  Choosing to repudiate its earlier doctrine, the Church must blame somebody - Joseph Smith or someone else.  Joseph Smith followed the teachings of the Old Testament which indisputably forbade blacks to hold priesthood or enter the temples, but once the Church pulls the rug out from under its polygamous founder, the Book of Mormon will doubtless be the next thing to go.

So, for now the Church is indicting polygamist, pioneer and governor, Brigham Young, asserting that he was imperfect and misguided (along with all of his successors through Harold B. Lee).  Denouncing a vast body of its own theological underpinnings, I suppose the Church must now rename itself - "The Community of Christ", or "The Church of Latter-day Lemmings", and rename BYU: "Thomas S. Monson University".

Let me tell you what, I believe, is the pathetic fallacy of this latest step.  Brigham Young was not perfect.  Jesus was/is perfect.  Nevertheless, Brigham Young did a great job of preserving and growing the Church.  Without Brigham Young, Salt Lake City and the modern Church would not exist.  This new message says, 

"People, don't put any faith in anything Brigham Young said.  He was a kook - - polygamy, Adam-God, blood atonement, denying the priesthood to blacks, preaching against miscegenation, etc., etc. !!  Put your trust in the modern, current leaders and in the doctrinal revisions they make.  The members of the Church in Brigham Young's day were sorely misguided.  They saw him as a 'prophet', and a prophet he wasn't.  Contrastingly, you modern-day members are utterly safe.  Just follow the utterances of the Kimballs, Hinckleys and Monsons, and you will go straight to the Celestial Kingdom.  Thomas S. Monson is a more legitimate prophet than Brigham Young [even though he has never claimed or published a single revelation]."

 Renn.

---

Mormon church traces black priesthood ban to Brigham Young

Religion • Black LDS praise the move; historian calls it another step in the “maturation” of the Utah-based faith.

By peggy fletcher Stack

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: December 10, 2013 09:39AM

In the past, the LDS Church has said history isn’t clear on why blacks were banned from its all-male priesthood for more than a century.

Apparently, it now is.

The reason, according to a newly released explanation from the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is rooted more in racism than revelation.

“Race and the Priesthood,” posted Friday on the church’s website, lds.org, also jettisons any beliefs developed through the years to defend the prohibition. And those findings are drawing praise from black Mormons and historians.

“Hallelujah,” says Catherine Stokes, a black Mormon who joined the LDS Church in Chicago and now lives in Utah. “I view this as a Christmas gift to each and every member of the church — black, white or whatever ethnicity.”

The ban began under Brigham Young, second LDS president, who was influenced by common beliefs of the time, reports the article. It did not exist during the tenure of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, who opposed slavery and personally ordained several African-Americans.

The essay is part of an ongoing series of “gospel topics pages” published by the LDS Church to give Mormons resources for understanding complex issues such as whether Mormons are Christians and differing, sometimes-contradictory accounts of Smith’s early visionary experiences.

The church-produced article on race argues that “there is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.”

But the record clearly shows that, in 1852, Young — Smith’s immediate successor — “publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the church.”

More than 125 years later, in 1978, the LDS Church, under then-President Spencer W. Kimball, lifted the ban, but some Mormons have continued to promote theories used to defend the former exclusion — “that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.”

The new statement says the LDS Church “disavows the theories advanced in the past ... [and that ] church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

Margaret Young, who teaches English at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University, believes all Mormons should carry a copy of the statement with them.

“Make three-by-five cards of Friday’s church statement on race. Edit carefully if you need to. Laminate it, and keep it handy —in a purse or wallet,” Young, who co-produced a documentary on blacks in the church, wrote to her Facebook friends. “We are now empowered to answer folks who perpetuate old justifications for the priesthood restriction in ways they won’t argue with. We are the messengers to give wings to the statement.”

What is most important about the statement on race to Mormon historian Richard Bushman is its perspective.

“It is written as a historian might tell the story,” Bushman says from his home in New York, “not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice.”

By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote “Rough Stone Rolling,” a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, “it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated.”

But accepting that, Bushman says, “requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking.”

Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, “it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration.”

Members need to recognize that God can “work through imperfect instruments,” Bushman says. “For many Latter-day Saints, that is going to be a difficult transition. But it is part of our maturation as a church.”

Some top Mormon leaders are already pushing in that direction.

“And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine,” Dieter F. Uchtdorf, second counselor in the faith’s governing First Presidency, said in October’s LDS General Conference. “I suppose the church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and his doctrine is pure. But he works through us — his imperfect children — and imperfect people make mistakes.”

While Mormons applaud the statement on race, some believe the church needs to go much further. Some want an apology; some just want wider awareness.

“The disavowal says to the church and to the world, ‘Everything we taught you justifying the restriction is wrong,’ ” says Marvin Perkins, a Los Angeles-based Mormon co-author of the DVD series, “Blacks in the Scriptures.” “But what would be ideal would be for every member to be as well-versed regarding the truths of the priesthood ban and scriptural truths regarding skin color and curses as they are with the Joseph Smith story and the First Vision. We need it repeated over and over in church curriculum in manuals and over the pulpit. That’s the way this will be resolved.”

Stokes, though, believes this latest step is worth celebrating.

Indeed, the website states, “in theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of his children and makes salvation available to all.”

This essay, Stokes says, “should enable people to move forward in concert with the second great commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

After all, she says, echoing Mormon scripture, “all are alike unto God.”

pstack@sltrib.com

Contradictions

You've all seen this sign, or one of the thousands like it.  The ecumenism of the Mormon Church is legendary.  Fifty thousand clean-cut missionaries are trotting the globe petulantly hoping to get you to the chapel.

Anybody and everybody is welcome.  Visitors become investigators, investigators become converts, and converts become members.  Members become tithe-payers, and tithe-payers pay for the fancy granite signs like this one boldly placed in front of your local LDS chapel.

I have some friends up in Utah who epitomize the perfect Mormon plural family.  The guy is a humble, hard-working husband.  He has two beautiful wives and a bundle of cute little kids.  He minds his own business and is loved by everyone who knows him.

Recently he shared with me a rather remarkable experience he had.  He moved into a Wasatch Front suburb a few years ago, and encountered some members of the local LDS ward.  He politely explained to them that he had two wives, and that he didn't want to cause a stir in the neighborhood.  They would keep largely to themselves and be respectful of the neighbor folks.

The ward members were taken aback by this revelation, but decided that such reticence was ill-placed.  They told my friend that he should not feel unwelcome and should certainly not hesitate to attend the ward's Sunday sacrament services (see the picture above).  He said, "Well, won't it be a little bit awkward  - me sitting there with the ladies on either side of me?  I don't want to make people feel uncomfortable."  "Silly," they pressed, "please come, we would love to have you!"

This humble, uncynical friend of mine decided to take them up on the invitation.  The next Sunday, husband, wife, wife, and toddlers all showed up for sacrament meeting.  When they got to the chapel, the ushers shepherded them to the front pews that had been deliberately vacated to make room for them.  Wow !!!!!!!  Such unprecedented glasnost. !!!

More remarkable still - the trio felt so welcomed, they came back to church again and again, and not just for several Sundays.  For TWO LONG YEARS this sweet family attended church faithfully, mingling and participating and sharing the fellowship and goodwill of people who embrace the restored Gospel.

The two ladies were so well received and respected by the ward members that they were eventually asked if they would accept some assignments and callings in the ward.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess that upset the applecart.  As you can expect, word of this development wafted up into the nostrils of the dark blue suits at 50 E. North Temple, and the fat hit the shin.  The edict came down.  But wait, there's more. Not only did the General Authorities override the local leaders regarding giving Church callings to polygamists (of course), but they actually told them to ask this beloved family of longtime visitors that they were NOT ALLOWED TO COME TO SUNDAY CHURCH MEETINGS ANY MORE.

That was the end of my friends' attendance at Mormon Church meetings.  What can you say?

VISITORS WELCOME