Court ruling -- Mormon religion is not a Prostestant religion

[candyprpl]

The Arkansas State Court of Appeals issued a ruling in October that stated the Mormon religion is not a protestant religion.

In what was thought to be a civil divorce proceeding between two adults and their children, an LDS man in Arkansas was found in contempt of court when he admitted he openly taught his children about the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to court documents, when the man and his wife divorced and created a visitation agreement, they agreed that each of the parents would only raise their children "in the prostestant faith." When the father acknowledged that he taught his children about the Church, the court held him in contempt of the divorce decree.

The Arkansas appeals court ruled that the Mormon Church is outside of the Prostestant faith based on the husband's own discription of the Church as not coming from a protest of the Catholic Church or any other Church, but as coming from a restoration from heaven. Though unclear as to why the court would rule on a theological matter, the judge did say that his decision was influenced in part by what was found on the Church's website (lds.org).

THOUGHTS?

[Hemidakota]

First I had to laugh on why the courts are bothering with something they have no adjudication power. Even finding someone with knowledge of the church and other beliefs, comparing it and making a claim it is otherwise. However, that being the case, they could of simple solved the problems without the aid of the courts through the parents.

Another embarrassing moment of our wonderful court system.

[Jenamarie]

I find it disturbing that limiting what religion a PARENT can teach his/her child about is allowed to be included in a divorce decree.

[DigitalShadow]

If he wasn't going to abide by the visitation agreement, he shouldn't have agreed to it in the first place. The ruling isn't very suprising, all the court did was recognize that the LDS faith is not the same as the protestant faith which falls under the "duh" category to me.

[DigitalShadow]

I find it disturbing that limiting what religion a PARENT can teach his/her child about is allowed to be included in a divorce decree.

I would find it disturbing if the other party was not able to protest this or was forced into it, but if they both agreed to it, I see no reason not to hold them to it.

[RachelleDrew]

I actually agree with DS on this one. He agreed to this a long time ago, and he even made the definition of "protestant" himself.

While this is a stupid issue to have to rule over, it was stupid of him for thinking that he could win when confronted with a bunch of rules he had a hand in making.

What a waste of court time.

[prisonchaplain]

If I'm not mistaken, custody proceedings often do involve limitations on religious instruction. For example, perhaps in order to win greater visitation time, the non-custodial parent will agree to not bring the child into certain houses of worship. This happens because the court is a mediator in such cases, and both parents have to come to agreement.

As for the Court saying your church is not Protestant...well it isn't. Like the Orthodox Church, or Jehovah's Witnesses, it is neither Catholic nor Protestant.

[KristofferUmfrey]

And I thought no law was supposed to be made establishing or abridging the free exercise of religion. Silly me... I thought I was in America.

[skylercollins]

It seems like the guy believed the LDS Church was a protestant religion. I've certainly seen it categorized as such, although I disagree that it is. Divorce is rarely pleasant, and in this case, ouch!

I think the guy should continue to go as a matter of his conscience and do what he can to have his little family home evenings, but keep it mainstream, protestant Christian, until they're old enough for him to open up more about his LDS faith then the court is currently allowing.

[skylercollins]

If I'm not mistaken, custody proceedings often do involve limitations on religious instruction. For example, perhaps in order to win greater visitation time, the non-custodial parent will agree to not bring the child into certain houses of worship. This happens because the court is a mediator in such cases, and both parents have to come to agreement.

As for the Court saying your church is not Protestant...well it isn't. Like the Orthodox Church, or Jehovah's Witnesses, it is neither Catholic nor Protestant.

I understand it's unofficially categorized as a "restorationist" church.

[Elrond]

I don't think it was really any of the courts business, personally.

How can a court of man judge a people of God?

Personally I do not like the terms "Protestant", "Catholic" or whatever. It's sectarianism. God is bigger than that. We are bigger than that if we realize who we are in God.

[NeuroTypical]

As for the Court saying your church is not Protestant...well it isn't. Like the Orthodox Church, or Jehovah's Witnesses, it is neither Catholic nor Protestant.

I agree with PC. I like this picture found on Wikipedia. It shows us mormons as the green dotted line going back to Christ - before Protestantism, before Catholicism.

LM

[prisonchaplain]

And I thought no law was supposed to be made establishing or abridging the free exercise of religion. Silly me... I thought I was in America.

What law was created here? Again, the court was a mediator. It was the parents who agreed to the terms. If the government said, "You cannot discuss any limitations on religion," that would be more of an imposition on religious practice than allowing the parents to negotiate the matter.

[Wingnut]

I agree with PC. I like this picture found on Wikipedia. It shows us mormons as the green dotted line going back to Christ - before Protestantism, before Catholicism.

LM

Can you share what Wiki article you found this in? It's an interesting chart, and I'd like to read through the rest of the subject matter around it.

[Moksha]

Similar rulings have been made in Utah where the divorce decree stated that the children were to be raised in the LDS faith.

My biggest disagreement with limiting children to any specific set of religious instructions, is that it takes a wide range of learning and understanding away from those children.

[Palerider]

its great to see tax dollars at work.....:cool:

[Moksha]

Wingnut, it appears to be this diagram found at List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/659px-

Edited December 5, 2008 by Moksha

[Outshined]

It does seem outside the authority of the court to decide what religions are suitable for teaching a child. Is the implication that teching a child Catholicism, Judaism, or LDS is somehow harmful enough to "violate the divorce decree"?

Sounds goofy, and could spark some discrimination lawsuits...

[Elphaba]

How can a court of man judge a people of God?

How indeed?

A court cannot judge people of God, whether it be LDS, or some other denomination. And no one should expect it to. However, the Church is considerd a religion among many others, including Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, etc. And in some instances, the court can make judgments about the Church.

However, I think this is a tough one, as I can see both sides.

Personally I do not like the terms "Protestant", "Catholic" or whatever. It's sectarianism. God is bigger than that. We are bigger than that if we realize who we are in God.

Are you also opposed to the term Latter-day Saints when referring to the LDS Church's movements?

It is what separates the Church from other religions.

I saw someone say the Church was considered a "restoration" Church. In the absence of any opinion, or knowledge, about the subject, I'd say that sounds good to me.

Elphaba

Edited December 5, 2008 by Elphaba
Because I am high today!

[Wingnut]

It does seem outside the authority of the court to decide what religions are suitable for teaching a child. Is the implication that teching a child Catholicism, Judaism, or LDS is somehow harmful enough to "violate the divorce decree"?

Sounds goofy, and could spark some discrimination lawsuits...

It doesn't seem that the court decided what religion would be taught to the children, but rather that the former spouses made an agreement with each other -- a legally binding agreement -- and the court was merely upholding and enforcing that agreement, as is entirely their place.

[Justice]

I find it disturbing that limiting what religion a PARENT can teach his/her child about is allowed to be included in a divorce decree.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Also, they didn't have to have a court decide we aren't Protestant. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Let me help demonstrate why religious instruction can be included in divorce decrees. Imagine you and dear spouse were married in the Temple (make it the one in SLC, since I saw the outside of it). Your sealed and meant to be together for time and eternity. Then that marvel of a person you married gets a wandering eye and has multiple illicit encounters, as a new hobby. S/he is unrepentant, claiming that these incidents were inconsequential, that their spiritual love was pure, and matters of the flesh just aren't that important. So, off to divorce court.

There happen to be several rugrats in the picture. You gain custody, and have some concerns that should your ex have a wandering eye for partners, s/he may have a wandering heart for spirituality. So, in the custody agreement you stick in a little clause that says that during visitations the only house of worship the children can be brought to is and LDS one. Agreement signed, no issues.

Three years down the road, wandering-eye indeed gets religion. It could be Scientology, or, how about fundamantalist polygamist practices in which the girls are married off in their early-to-mid teens?

Not saying the Court should aggressively pursue including religion in the agreements. But, yeah, sometimes Big Brother can be a useful mediator.

[prisonchaplain]

In terms of the OP, I thought the answer was pretty clear: generally, no. They are too young for most institutions. Also, most volunteers come in once a week or less. So, full-time missionaries are not as useful as long-term commitment.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Let me help demonstrate why religious instruction can be included in divorce decrees. Imagine you and dear spouse were married in the Temple (make it the one in SLC, since I saw the outside of it). Your sealed and meant to be together for time and eternity. Then that marvel of a person you married gets a wandering eye and has multiple illicit encounters, as a new hobby. S/he is unrepentant, claiming that these incidents were inconsequential, that their spiritual love was pure, and matters of the flesh just aren't that important. So, off to divorce court.

There happen to be several rugrats in the picture. You gain custody, and have some concerns that should your ex have a wandering eye for partners, s/he may have a wandering heart for spirituality. So, in the custody agreement you stick in a little clause that says that during visitations the only house of worship the children can be brought to is and LDS one. Agreement signed, no issues.

Three years down the road, wandering-eye indeed gets religion. It could be Scientology, or, how about fundamantalist polygamist practices in which the girls are married off in their early-to-mid teens?

Not saying the Court should aggressively pursue including religion in the agreements. But, yeah, sometimes Big Brother can be a useful mediator.

As long as the child is in no immediate danger the parent should be able to instruct the child as he/she sees fit during visitation. The child, when of age, can decide which path to follow (or none of them).

This type of divorce degree is is essence making a law establishing one religion over another which is not permissible under US Constitutional law.

[prisonchaplain]

As long as the child is in no immediate danger the parent should be able to instruct the child as he/she sees fit during visitation. The child, when of age, can decide which path to follow (or none of them).

This type of divorce degree is is essence making a law establishing one religion over another which is not permissible under US Constitutional law.

We may just have to disagree about this. However, since the agreement is originating between the parents, the Court/State/Govt is making no law. It is merely arbitrating and enforcing what the parents decide.