Court ruling -- Mormon religion is not a Prostestant religion

[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.

Also..

Frankly I'm offended at the stereotyping of fundamentalist Mormon communities as "marrying-off" girls in their mid teens. What do you know about these communities, of which there are many, except what you have seen on TV about one particular group?

[MarginOfError]

Just want to back up what prisonchaplin has said...if a parent wants to be free to teach his children whatever religion he or she chooses, then that should be made clear in the divorce decree. If you agree to something in your divorce decree and then violate it, then you're at fault, plain and simple.

and prisonchaplin never mentioned fundamentalist Mormon communities. He posited that the parent began pursuing a religion with fundamentalist polygamist practices. in which the girls are married off in their early-to-mid teens. His statement assumes that there exists such a practice. If you wish to deny that, then you should show that no such practice or organization exists. He's done nothing to stereotype, but rather, has selected carefully a situation that has appropriate dramatic effect.

[Elgama]

I'd like to know how old the children are and how much say they got in this deal their parents came up with. If parents are going to be irresponsible enough to separate and cause their children pain and difficulty, and if they can't decide then surely the child should have the final say on a matter like this?

-Charley

[FunkyTown]

I had always thought it classified as Radical Reform.

[Outshined]

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.

True; on re-reading the article, the judgement has nothing to do with religion, only the agreement between the parents. Both agreed to it, so it's hard to argue against the ruling.

As far as the ruling that the LDS faith is not protestant, it is not, so I have no issue with that.

[abqfriend]

The court was justified in my opinion. The problem was in the visitation rights agreed upon by both parties and a violation of those agreed upon rights.

They should have set up the visitation rights agreement differently-and there would have been no legal case.

-Carol

[KristofferUmfrey]

Margin of Error & Funky Town-

If either of your responses was directed towards my post I apologize that you will not receive an witty reply in response since you along with Wingnut and Elphaba are on my ignore list to reduce my chances of replying in such a manner as to merit more rebukes from moderators who already have no desire to see my posts. If you don't like my posts, I suggest you do the same and place me on your ignore list. It really is a great little feature.

Edited December 5, 2008 by KristofferUmfrey

[candyprpl]

I wish there was more to this article that I posted.

I agree that LDS is not Prostestant and that the parents agreement was that, and that the court only upheld the ruling of the visitation agreement. I think it's unfortunate that the Father or his lawyer was not clear on this agreement. It's also very unfortunate that the parents couldn't handle this outside the court system. This is when the children will suffer:(

I'm afraid that I would have read Prostestant as just being a Christian religion and not thought of the exact meaning of the word.

Why would a parent want to be so angry that they would bring this to court and hurt the children? It's not abuse or neglect -- this father truly loves his children.

And did the court really have to slap a contempt of court? This is why I could never be a judge -- it would be too hard for me to follow the law to the letter.

[RachelleDrew]

Margin of Error & Funky Town-

If either of your responses was directed towards my post I apologize that you will not receive an witty reply in response since you along with Wingnut and Elphaba are on my ignore list to reduce my chances of replying in such a manner as to merit more rebukes from moderators who already have no desire to see my posts. If you don't like my posts, I suggest you do the same and place me on your ignore list. It really is a great little feature.

Wow, finally someone who is more dramatic than I am.

This is an internet forum, not a cage match. Calm down.

[prisonchaplain]

Also..

Frankly I'm offended at the stereotyping of fundamentalist Mormon communities as "marrying-off" girls in their mid teens. What do you know about these communities, of which there are many, except what you have seen on TV about one particular group?

Well, on the humorous side, I married at 31, so most of you married young! More seriously, I didn't stereotype--I used a couple of rather extreme examples, to make a point. It is legitimate for parents in a custody situation to want to preserve the religious upbringing that both had been raising the children in.

[Wingnut]

Margin of Error & Funky Town-

If either of your responses was directed towards my post I apologize that you will not receive an witty reply in response since you along with Wingnut and Elphaba are on my ignore list to reduce my chances of replying in such a manner as to merit more rebukes from moderators who already have no desire to see my posts. If you don't like my posts, I suggest you do the same and place me on your ignore list. It really is a great little feature.

Well that's a cryin' shame.

[MarginOfError]

Margin of Error & Funky Town-

If either of your responses was directed towards my post I apologize that you will not receive an witty reply in response since you along with Wingnut and Elphaba are on my ignore list to reduce my chances of replying in such a manner as to merit more rebukes from moderators who already have no desire to see my posts. If you don't like my posts, I suggest you do the same and place me on your ignore list. It really is a great little feature.

Oh no...now how will he see all the corrections I make when he forgets to research something?

[MarginOfError]

Margin of Error & Funky Town-

If either of your responses was directed towards my post I apologize that you will not receive an witty reply in response since you along with Wingnut and Elphaba are on my ignore list to reduce my chances of replying in such a manner as to merit more rebukes from moderators who already have no desire to see my posts. If you don't like my posts, I suggest you do the same and place me on your ignore list. It really is a great little feature.

If he has me on ignore, I wonder if he'll notice when I correct his poorly researched statements.

[Interested]

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.

Quoted for truth.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

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.

Yep. I was born Mormon (as many here were) and I never believed and was often told that we are NOT protestant and that they are about as mistaken as the catholics.

[Aesa]

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.

You honestly think the government gives two hoots about much of the constitution?