Just_A_Guy

In Emma Smith's case, yes; because the woman's right to give or withhold consent to her husband's polygamous marriages (the "Law of Sarah") does not apply to a woman married to the man who holds the keys of the sealing power--i.e., the President of the Church. See D&C 132:64-65. For the rest of the Church, the Law of Sarah remained intact as long as polygamy was practiced; and a man who overrode the desires of his wife and took another was abusing his priesthood. As for YFZ and the FLDS: I note, first, that "Sarah" turned out to be a black Mormon in Colorado who (from the foregoing, one may easily deduce) had no connection whatsoever to the FLDS Church. Moreover, I also read Carolyn Jessop's book. I found it extremely self-serving, and have been in contact with several FLDS who contradict not only Ms. Jessop's generalizations, but also her recollections of several specific events. I have not read Brent Jeffs' book, but last I heard he was in the middle of suing his dear uncle Warren for a seven-figure sum. If I want to know what "really" happened to him, I suspect the trial transcript would be a far more enlightening document if and when it becomes available. Ann Eliza Young's book is a valid source (subject to Elphaba's critique above), but you should be aware that it went through several editions and the later ones were apparently spiced up by publishers who had zero first-hand experience with the Mormons. If you want to read her experiences, make sure you've got a first edition (or an exact copy thereof). Not trying to say polygamous communities don't have any problems--even grievous ones--but we, of all people, should know that ex-members of a religious community are, all-too-often, extremely poor sources as to what's "really happening" within that community.

FWIW, I really intended it to be apolitical--seems to me you could interpret it to mock either side.

No.

The "sealing" is not the ordinance. The "sealing" is the Holy Ghost's approval of the manner in which the parties have lived up to the covenants made during that ordinance. If the husband really did what he is accused of doing, there is no sealing.

Well . . . it was supposed to be a cheap laugh, but okay.

OK, question: My mom (grew up LDS in the sixties) says she was taught, as a kid, that the Church frowns on wearing masks as part of Halloween costumes. I'm reasonably certain there's a policy discouraging the use of masks in church buildings, but does this reflect some sort of doctrinal issue? Or is it just a pragmatic restriction?

Sadly, yes. They call it "the bar exam".

Welcome, from a recovering law student!

Apparently, a number of UK theme parks have decided that hyperactive kids are unable to wait in line. The solution? Show a note from your doctor, and you get to go to the head of the line.

I'm not sufficiently aware of the ins and outs of the debate to make an informed comment about this article. Any takers?

.

I'm with the people who picked Zeezrom. Would be interesting to discuss the finer points of Nephite jurisprudence.

And now, from CNN: Washing Hands May Not Stop Swine Flu

about a Soviet "doomsday machine" that remains operational. Whatever your politics, it's an awesome--and scary--bit of technology.

I'm just going to qualify my earlier comments by saying that both law professors Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds (the latter of Instapundit) seem to think that this will open up ACORN to discovery. So, take that for what you will.

(Are we still allowed to talk about this?) I am not licensed in Maryland; so take all this for what you paid for it. That said: Courts will usually try to keep civil discovery germane to the issues that determine the case. In this case (the court action, not the larger picture) the issue isn't what ACORN was doing; the issue is what O'Keefe, Giles, and Breitbart were doing. Now, if O'Keefe et al. assert a defense of, say, "truth" or "public interest", and Maryland law recognizes those as valid defenses against the cause of action being pressed, then it would be justifiable to dig into ACORN's own activities in an effort to determine whether O'Keefe et al's actions were justified. But that's a pretty big "if". I have no idea what defenses Maryland law offers to such a suit. The civil complaint is here. You'll notice they attribute damages also to Fox News for pretty much the same behavior as Breitbart, but Fox News is not a named defendant even though it has the deepest pockets. That's because this isn't really about the money--it's about destroying ACORN's opposition. Fox News and the Murdoch empire is too big to be bullied (as is, probably, Glenn Beck, whose name AFAIK is also conspicuously absent from the complaint), and ACORN knows it--so it's going after the small fish.

Ye saints--it's working!!!!

Love it!!!!!

Thews - All this, after your sanctimonious pontificating about changing the subject? Let us recall that you brought the Whitney letter up purportedly to illustrate that "Joseph Smith knew the Book of Mormon was false and was using the Mormon church to satisfy his own desires". Which it obviously doesn't. It was an effort to drive discussion away from Swedenborg. I'm probably a fool for playing into it, but maybe when you get your clock thoroughly cleaned on this red herring you'll slink back onto the topic. It's THE point, if you're are trying to sell it as a love letter. Yeah, and it's not like Joseph wrote the letter when he was IN HIDING or anything. How convenient of you to forget that the elder Whitneys were sealed in marriage three days later. Newell K. Whitney did not have 38 wives. At the time of the events in question he was a monogamist. After Smith's death he took two more wives. "Had married" her, actually. Three weeks before the letter was even written. Proving that you have no clue what on earth you're talking about. So, you wanna make an argument about why Swedenborg disproves Joseph Smith while Hillel disproves nothing? Or do you need to take a few minutes and run back to the Exmo boards to come up with your next talking points?

You mean, the letter that was freakin' addressed to her PARENTS?

I would have said "My Life" by Billy Joel.

If you release him back into the wild, be very, very careful that there are no predators around. My in-laws once nursed a bird back to health . . . within ten seconds of their releasing him, the family cat got him.

Jacob 1:15

Oops - they're doin' it again . . . Votin' on plans - that haven't been pub-ub-ub-ub-li-cized . . . (/ homage to Britney Spears)