Just_A_Guy

If I'm understanding you right, you seem to view the delegates to the Constitutional Convention as basically a group of above-average politicians who essentially adopted and codified the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers; therefore, we should look primarily to the Enlightenment and not to the actual drafters both when giving credit for, and when attempting to interpret, the US Constitution. Sort of an "originalism-once-removed" view. Correct? Woops! Must have cross-posted.

Not so much. Looks like the Irish PM was the one who came out looking dumb. But I'll bet our British friends are tickled pink over the whole spectacle.

captmoroniRM, you are absolutely no fun whatsoever! Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt!

I'm not sure. Does that mean that Article II, Section 2, clause ii was inspired? If so, was it inspired because it was a necessary compromise to get the South to accept the document--a sort of divine Realpolitik? Thanks for the quote. If I have my numbers right, of the 55 delegates, 49 were Protestants of some sort and three were Catholics. Thus, fifty-two of the fifty-five delegates were at least nominally Christians, which doesn't seem to square with the earlier assertion that "the Founders were mostly all Deists".

I like his radio show a lot, though he seems to occasionally become obsessed with particular topics (Iran or whatever) that become tiresome after a couple of weeks. I saw his CNN show a few times, and thought it somehow failed to capture the dynamic that makes his radio show so enjoyable. Haven't watched him since he moved to Fox.

I don't really feel qualified to weigh in on the Enlightenment ideals or their role in the formation of the Constitution, and it seems the discussion is being ably carried on by others. I would note that 1) When we talk about the religious beliefs of "the founders", it's important to specify which "founders" we're talking about. Thomas Jefferson seems to be kind of the poster boy for Deist founders, but he was not involved in drafting the Constitution AFAIK. I recognize LittleWyvern's points above, but would be interested to see a name-by-name breakdown of the religious beliefs of those present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (as well as those involved in drafting and ratifying the Bill of Rights--see below). 2) I've always assumed (without thinking too much on the topic) that when Joseph Smith and other Church leaders referred to the Constitution as an "inspired document", they were thinking mostly of the safeguards incorporated into the Constitution by later amendments (viz the Bill of Rights) and not necessarily of the governmental structure put forward by the Constitution in its 1787 incarnation. 3) Whatever the Founders' religious beliefs were, thanks to Wilford Woodruff we know what they are now (well, several of them, anyways).

Indeed. That's why I labeled it as "pure speculation". What we're doing here is taking a Church policy--the (former prohibition on women being sealed to more than one individual) and trying to extrapolate an eternal doctrine out of it. That's always a dangerous endeavor, and it's important not to get too set on any one explanation. I think the best thing to do is to keep an open mind. Frankly, if/when I make it to the CK--nothing will surprise me. The issue of who begat whom isn't necessarily my objection to polyandry--scientists can resolve that question well enough, and I imagine gods can do so as well. I guess my problem comes back to the seeming . . . I don't know . . . lack of order that would be associated with a Celestial free-for-all. But there will be priesthood in the heavenly home (older siblings). And, so far as we know, somebody has to preside within the family unit (however that unit is ultimately defined). Is there a "head husband"? Could a man be a "head husband" in one polyandrous relationship, but not in another? Just thinking about it makes me dizzy. I'm not convinced that it would necessarily need to be so. As a "god unit", perhaps all participants share in the glory brought by all of the children. Heck yeah. I would ask, though--why is the burden of proof on those who say there is no polyandry? The argument for polyandry seems based primarily in twentieth/twenty-first century notions of "marital equality"--a social condition that has existed for barely one-tenth of one-percent of human history (assuming you accept a literalist 6000-years-since-Adam chronology). I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable using those ideas--meritorious though they are--in order to extrapolate some kind of eternal order of things.

I think Snow meant that Brigham Young was relatively liberal in giving his approval to the divorces of others. I seem to recall Arrington writing something to that effect in his biography of Young.

Could you explain this a bit, please? Thanks.

To supplement Connie's post: A church member will usually receive one patriarchal blessing during his or her lifetime. Those who grow up in the Church usually receive it when they are in their late teens. The blessing is given by a Patriarch (every stake has at least one). One feature of the blessing is the pronouncement of the member's "lineage" (i.e. which tribe of Israel the member is descended from--there are specific blessings and responsibilities associated with each tribe). Additionally, the Patriarch will pronounce blessings upon the member, make promises, or give warnings/advice as the spirit of prophecy directs. The blessing is transcribed and a copy is given to the church member (another copy is kept at Church archives in Salt Lake City, in case the member loses their own copy); it is viewed as a guide to which the member may refer throughout his or her lifetime.

Pure speculation here, but if --the role of an exalted "god unit" (man + wife/wives) is to create new spirits, and --fulfilling that role is the primary/only way that the glory of the god unit may increase, and --the process for creating spirits is analagous to the process for creating bodies (e.g. some kind of "gestation" done by the female), then polygamy would increase the rate at which the god unit could create new spirits (and add to their glory), while polyandry would serve no purpose at all.

Moksha, I'll let you watch the top 5% of wage-earners in the US duke it out for their pieces of Galt Island (actually a mountain enclave in Colorado, if I remember correctly), if you will let me watch the other 95% of Americans try to make their country work on 45% of its previous annual tax revenue. :)

Yeah; when I said "long enough" I should have specified "approximately four minutes".

Where would they go? I yield. Edit: More from Instapundit:

Not sure. Her website doesn't say?

Maybe a nice note to end things on is this piece from the Huffington Post, written by a non-member. A tidbit:

I've seen some Elna Baker on YouTube. Very engaging stage presence, but her "innocent-Mormon-girl-lost-in-big-bad-New-York" shtick becomes thoroughly unpersuasive (and therefore unamusing) if you listen to her long enough.

EFY is administered by the Church Educational System--in other words, paid employees of Salt Lake. I doubt they'd be as lax as your local stake leadership seems to have been (out of curiosity, where are your girls planning to attend EFY?) I attended EFY at BYU for three years in the mid nineties, and both dress and behavior standards were rigidly enforced (not that we were fox-trotting or anything; but moshing and grinding were certainly not tolerated). Music is now, as it was in the sixties and seventies, a mixed bag.

I think heavenly polyandry may be possible, but we have very little to go on here. We know Joseph Smith practiced it, but I don't know that he preached very much about it either in public or in private (and it was alleged in the other thread that even as Joseph practiced earthly polyandry, none of those women was sealed to any man but him--so Joseph's practice doesn't necessarily translate into eternal polyandry). I can see why someone would envision heaven as one big society where everyone is married to everyone--but, to be blunt, the idea repulses me on a personal level. Aside from the emotional intimacy that comes with being part of a specific and relatively exclusive marital unit, the idea of millions of heavenly half-siblings and quarter-siblings and step-siblings-once-removed would create a cat's-cradle of bizarrely intersecting lineages that seems contrary to the little we do know about the patriarchal order.

I like this. (Er, I mean, I like the way you've phrased it.)

My understanding was that AIG basically was the "insurer's insurer"--it underwrote insurance policies on all the mortgage and other securities deals that went south. AIG might legitimately have been the one financial entity that really was "too big to fail". But then, maybe I just believe that because the AIG bailout happened on Bush's watch.

In addition to what Bytor has written, "the nation" did not give Utah women the right to vote. "The nation" took it away--because those pesky polygamous Mormon women kept voting for the status quo.

Here's an argument from Instapundit. It's probably technically an et tu fallacy, but interesting nonetheless:

Mixed feelings on this. My understanding is the bonus were distributed between about 400 middle-managers. Lots of these guys are probably the buffoons who got AIG where it is today, but they also (presumably) represent a lot of institutional knowledge and even (in rare cases) talent. Do we really want them to flee AIG en masse because AIG has not paid them what they were led to expect to be paid?

I'll defer to Michael, but the saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" would seem to apply here.