Excomunicate Harry Reid?

[CaptainTux]

I'll assume ari is someone who made a lot of trouble here once. Every forum has one. On the one I am regularly at it is a guy called Dr Evil who clones handles. I am who I am and will gladly submit identity to a mod or admin if asked.

NAMBLA was a most extreme example. I was not equating homosexuals to pedophiles. I was showing how the thin edge of a wedge (homosexual marriage) can lead the wedge into a bigger thing...a much bigger thing. My first instinct was to go with polygamy, but I did not want to have my example being mis interpreted as some mis understanding with the current position of the lds on that topic.

Look, I fail to see how being opposed to homosexual union is picking on them.

Going back to the thin edge of the wedge, the constitution is at stake...not with separation of church and state (a non existent phrase) but from the church to have the protection FROM the state.

I am cool with the equal opportunity employment act. I am cool with homosexuals being protected in the workplace. But, when does that become reversed? When will churches be forced to hire or admit into seminaries people of lifestyles not considered acceptable by the church? At what point is it considered discriminatory practice to refuse to perform ceremonies in your church for gay marriages?

I am not one who believes in some liberal conspiracy to tear down the church. I am not one who believes the family will be destroyed if harry and bill get to be married. I do believe that with every legal decision a precedent is set and there is a domino affect that we have to watch for and we always need to ask the what if's on every matter that our elected officials decide on our behalf.

UCLA...ACLU...there's a difference.

[Jason]

When will churches be forced to hire or admit into seminaries people of lifestyles not considered acceptable by the church?

When Churches or Seminaries accept Federal Funds to operate. If you take public funds, you are subject to the whim of the Public. Period.

[CaptainTux]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I do not see any caveats there. There is no prohibition to granting federal funds...at what point does one take federal funds? At the point a federal employee uses their paycheck to put a student into a private religious school or seminary? The ACLU said that is the case in 1992 and set a legal precedent. Thin edge of the wedge.

Do we change the amendment in accommodation of federal funds? What if the federal funds go to, as our current president has moved, to religious charitable groups? If Catholic charities received federal funds to aid hurricane victims, does the church have to perform marriages for gay people?

[prisonchaplain]

When will churches be forced to hire or admit into seminaries people of lifestyles not considered acceptable by the church?

When Churches or Seminaries accept Federal Funds to operate. If you take public funds, you are subject to the whim of the Public. Period.

I hope you're wrong. If so, BYU surely has students on loans/grants. The IRS consideres that "the taking of public funds." Likewise, some churches also have charitable works that are partially funded by government grants, such as preschools that welcome low-income students.

So, Jason, if an LDS or AG run preschool accepts a child for whom the government chips in $50 a month towards tuition, you think it would be right to force the church to perform gay marriages (should they become legal)? Must they hire the homosexual worship leader that applies?

If so, the short term solution is for churches to askew all forms of government financing. But it hardly seems fair that we should have to choose between educating the upper classes only and sticking to our beliefs, or compromise our values in order to help those with less means.

[Jason]

I do not see any caveats there. There is no prohibition to granting federal funds...at what point does one take federal funds? At the point a federal employee uses their paycheck to put a student into a private religious school or seminary? The ACLU said that is the case in 1992 and set a legal precedent. Thin edge of the wedge.

Not what Im saying. If a religious institution receives Federal Funds directly (not indirectly via students) then the Public has a right to decide how said institution is run.

If Catholic charities received federal funds to aid hurricane victims, does the church have to perform marriages for gay people?

That's a poor statement, and I think you know it. Nobody is speaking about a "charity" be it religious or not. We're talking about seminaries. I believe that if and or when a religious seminary accepts public funds directly as do non-religious schools, then the people have a right to decide how that seminary is run.

That's it.

I hope you're wrong. If so, BYU surely has students on loans/grants. The IRS consideres that "the taking of public funds."

The IRS does not dictate legislative policy.

So, Jason, if an LDS or AG run preschool accepts a child for whom the government chips in $50 a month towards tuition, you think it would be right to force the church to perform gay marriages (should they become legal)? Must they hire the homosexual worship leader that applies?

Im not even talking about gay marriage. I don't give a flip if homosexuals get married or not. It does not matter to me. You don't see me getting upset when somebody has their poodle's married, pomp and all. It certainly doesn't affect my marriage, nor does it somehow invalidate or cheapen my marriage. It's a non-issue.

If so, the short term solution is for churches to askew all forms of government financing. But it hardly seems fair that we should have to choose between educating the upper classes only and sticking to our beliefs, or compromise our values in order to help those with less means.

Since when was life fair?

[prisonchaplain]

Not what Im saying. If a religious institution receives Federal Funds directly (not indirectly via students) then the Public has a right to decide how said institution is run.

It's not what you're saying, but it is what the IRS says. They went after Grove City College (PA) in the 1980s, demanding that it prove it does not discriminate. They college say, "We receive no public funds." The IRS said, "Oh contrare--you do have students with grants and loans, don't you???"

That's a poor statement, and I think you know it. Nobody is speaking about a "charity" be it religious or not. We're talking about seminaries. I believe that if and or when a religious seminary accepts public funds directly as do non-religious schools, then the people have a right to decide how that seminary is run.

Speak to some lawyers for the Catholic Church about this little quandry. In the lawsuits many diosces have faced, lawyers and church officials have been lambasted for trying to shield Catholic universities and individual parishes from being party to financial settlements. The "who controls what" is not so cut and dry--so Captain's example is not unreasonable.

The IRS does not dictate legislative policy.

No, it implements it. Both Bob Jones University and Grove City College faced IRS action, when the agency determined that they may have violated public policy. Both institutions had religious tax-exempt status that the IRS said it had the power to remove, due to public policy concerns.

[Lindy]

Er, whatever happened to separation of church and state?!? I think what Senator Reid did was courageous--he voted his conscience, not just what somebody told him to do. I also happen to agree with his vote, for a number of reasons.

1. Marriage and family law traditionally falls under the jurisdiction of the state governments, not the federal.

2. The "Defense of Marriage Amendment" does not protect marriage between a man and a woman, because:

a. heterosexual marriage is not under attack in the first place (nobody's trying to ban it);

b. far more serious threats to marriage are not addressed at all by the proposed amendment (fornication, adultery, teenage pregnancy, poverty, inadequate health care, poor education, commercialism, violence, etc.)

3. The proposed amendment is blatantly discriminatory--it singles out homosexuals, a tiny minority of the population, and denies them civil liberties the rest of us enjoy.

Like Senator Reid (and presumably y'all), I believe God means marriage to be between a man and a woman, but I also don't believe we should legislate all the commandments. If we're going to try strengthening the family through the power of the state, why don't we pass a constitutional amendment banning adultery, a far more common sin, and one that destroys far more families, than homosexual sex?

This proposed amendment is very hateful toward homosexuals, because it singles them out like that, and it's a rather obvious ploy on the part of the far "right" wing to boost their ratings in the popularity polls and garner more votes. Gay marriage, while I don't condone it, is almost a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned (along with flag burning)--we have far more important things to be focusing on.

Dror

Good points... after thinking about it for awhile... I agree the law should be decided by state and not federal.. although I firmly believe that some kind of moral standards need to be implemented for the nation. What's that song.... "you gotta stand for something.... or you'll fall for anything" And I agree, it's such a small percentage...it's almost a non issue...NOW...but what about in the future? And yes, we do have far more important things to focus on... those you mentioned along with dead beat dads, abuse and so much more.... Wouldn't that be great?... a family amendment! One to strengthen the family as a unit.

[Traveler]

My thoughts on Senator Reid

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS has every right to establish it doctrines. This is the right granted in the Constitution - not the separation of Church and state most claim.

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS has to right (and responsibility) to discipline its own members that use public forms to speak out against the doctrines of the church. The Church made public its stand on marriage and has a right to insure our beliefs are not compromised by any member, especially with public ridicule for political purposes.

The Traveler

[Dror]

What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?

Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.

As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same you would any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him same dignity as anyone else you come in contact with.

{quote] Why don't we get on with addressing the real threats to the family? Are we serious about protecting and strengthening families. How does this lifestyle stenghten families?

It goes against the very core of what a family should be.

Honeybear, Thank you for your response. If you carefully read my previous posts, you will see that I condone neither homosexual marriage nor homosexual relations. Committing homosexual acts is a serious sin, and I hope that those who do so will repent and come unto Christ. However, you seem to miss my point.

My point is that there are other, more serious threats to the family, and people seem, by and large, to be ignoring them in the political sphere. Some of them are listed in the scripture you quoted, 1 Cor. 6:9-10:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Others include poverty, domestic violence, lack of access to decent healthcare, lack of education, divorce, teen pregnancy, and pornography. You are right that homosexual behavior is a sin, a serious sin. However, let's get real. If one percent of the population is gay, that means that 99 percent of the population is straight. I believe a large number of heterosexuals look at pornography, have sexual relations outside of marriage, whether as singles or by committing adultery. Many teens are having sex. Many are getting pregnant out of wedlock, and quite frequently the man responsible abandons the woman and child. It seems to me that even if only 25% of the heterosexual population commits these sins (and that may be quite optimistic), that still amounts to heterosexuals committing 25 times as many sexual sins as homosexuals. We also have to face the fact that the consequences of heterosexual sins to families, women, and children tend to be more serious that those of homosexual sins. After all, homosexual activity does not lead to unwanted pregnancies. Some people are in heterosexual marriages and then come out as gay and have an extramarital affair, and this breaks their spouse's heart and destroys the marriage. How many more straight people have extramarital affairs than gays, simply because there are more heterosexuals out there? How many children end up in single-parent families because one of their parents is unfaithful to their spouse, or because their parents get a divorce for some other reason? People complain about "frivolous lawsuits." What about "frivolous divorces?" How many times do we hear of people getting divorced for "irreconcilable differences," whatever that means? Granted, there are perfectly appropriate reasons for getting divorced, but it seems to me that too many people give up on their marriages too easily, or are just too selfish to do what it takes to keep a marriage together. Which reminds me, the Bible condemns divorce--do you think the government should disallow divorce? The Bible also gives the death penalty to adulterers, not to mention children who fail to honor their parents. Should the government instate the death penalty for adultery and dishonoring parents?

Heterosexuals are responsible for destroying far more families than are homosexuals. Without addressing those other issues, it is hypocritical to talk of defending marriage merely by banning homosexual marriages. If we single out homosexuals this way, it is discrimination, pure and simple, a means of political pandering to gain votes for the "right" wing.

I do appreciate your kind approach to dealing with homosexuals on an individual basis, loving them and treating them with respect. It seems to me the best way to deal with sinners of any stripe.

You said:

However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.

Once again, if you read carefully what I say, I most certainly do not approve of the sin. I'm also not convinced that mine is a "socially acceptable opinion"--the people in my state, at least, have already passed an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage--therefore, I am in the minority, having voted against it. Finally, I beg leave to differ with the idea that my opinion is "void of godliness."

Dror

[Dror]

My thoughts on Senator Reid

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS has every right to establish it doctrines. This is the right granted in the Constitution - not the separation of Church and state most claim.

The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS has to right (and responsibility) to discipline its own members that use public forms to speak out against the doctrines of the church. The Church made public its stand on marriage and has a right to insure our beliefs are not compromised by any member, especially with public ridicule for political purposes.

The Traveler

You are right that the Church has the right to establish its doctrines. I ask you, Who here are argued otherwise? And yes, the Church has the right to discipline noncompliant members. They could do so with Senator Reid, I suppose, if he is in fact noncompliant. Nevertheless, I rather doubt they would--it would be rather bad PR for the Church if they disciplined a very prominent elected official because he opposed the anti-gay marriage amendment, not because people agree with gay marriage (they don't), but because people generally don't like churches attempting to dictate public policy.

As far as separation of church and state go, that is where you're wrong. Heck, if giving churches the right to establish their doctrines were all the 1st Amendment were about, they could establish, say, the Lutherans as the official United States Church, let them set there own doctrines, and then proceed to force them on the rest of us. No, the First Amendment, along with Article VI, firmly establish the principle of separation in the Constitution. I would be very interested to see what kind of proof to the contrary you might have to offer, if you care to continue this debate.

Dror

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Just love talking about NAMBLA, don't you Ari?

I'm pretty sure CaptainTux is not Ari! :)

M.

Im wondering about that. I've never seen anyone else mention politcs and NAMBLA in the same post.

Capt. Tux is not Ari--I'm almost positive. While invoking NAMBLA can be extreme, it's a slippery slope that's not unreasonable to speculate about. What about an 18 year "man" and a 17 year old "boy"? 19 and 16, 20 and 15? Some churches believe that a child as young as 7 or 8 is old enough to be "born again." Jews declare 13-year olds to be men.

20 years ago the right-wing Moral Majority types said that homosexuals would eventually go for legalized marriage, with the hopes of eventually destorying it. Far-fetched!! Outrageous! They exclaimed. Just stay out of our bedrooms. Today many are saying government should simply get out of the business of marriage all together (i.e. the public institution of marriage should be abolished...destroyed).

This is a tough problem, because the religious arguments against homosexual marriage are, well, religious. The bottom-line question is, can society have certain standards of behavior that are common and based in shared morals? If yes, then societies may continue to say no to homosexual marriage. If not--if we want to embrace the Libertarian concept that there should be no legal sanction against "victimless" behavior--i.e. consensual behavior--then, there's really nothing to stop it.

Dude, where do you get the idea that "today many are saying government should simply get out of the business of marriage all together (i.e. the public institution of marriage should be abolished...destroyed)"? I've never heard anybody at all say anything even remotely like that. What gives? The homosexuals do not want to abolish marriage--they want to get married. Slight difference, no?

((exasperation!!))

[Dror]

Look, I fail to see how being opposed to homosexual union is picking on them.

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that banning gay marriage while completely ignoring little things like adultery, fornication, divorce, teen and other unwanted pregnancies, domestic violence, etc., etc., is discriminatory. It's picking on homosexuals because it's focusing on them as The Problem, while not paying any attention at all to the misdeeds of heterosexuals.

Going back to the thin edge of the wedge, the constitution is at stake...not with separation of church and state (a non existent phrase) but from the church to have the protection FROM the state.

Tell me, where in the Constitution does it say "protection from the state?" It's a "nonexistent phrase." The wall of separation between church and state, on the other hand, is not a nonexistent phrase--it was coined by none other than Founder Thomas Jefferson, and approved of and used by Founder and Principal Author of the Constitution James Madison.

It baffles me why people insist on choosing either protecting the church from the state or protecting the state from the church. It seems to me that that is a false dichotomy. The two notions are inseparable. Separating church and state protect both of them.

I am cool with the equal opportunity employment act. I am cool with homosexuals being protected in the workplace. But, when does that become reversed? When will churches be forced to hire or admit into seminaries people of lifestyles not considered acceptable by the church? At what point is it considered discriminatory practice to refuse to perform ceremonies in your church for gay marriages?

Allowing people to perform gay marriages does not amount to requiring that it be done. If gay marriage were legal, one church could decide to perform gay marriages, while another church could decide not to. That means more freedom for the churches, not less.

I am not one who believes in some liberal conspiracy to tear down the church. I am not one who believes the family will be destroyed if harry and bill get to be married. I do believe that with every legal decision a precedent is set and there is a domino affect that we have to watch for and we always need to ask the what if's on every matter that our elected officials decide on our behalf.

UCLA...ACLU...there's a difference.

The legal precedent that would be set is that a church that decides to do so could perform gay marriages. It would not prevent other churches from refusing to perform gay marriages.

Dror

[prisonchaplain]

Dude, where do you get the idea that "today many are saying government should simply get out of the business of marriage all together (i.e. the public institution of marriage should be abolished...destroyed)"? I've never heard anybody at all say anything even remotely like that. What gives? The homosexuals do not want to abolish marriage--they want to get married. Slight difference, no?

((exasperation!!))

I don't expect you to call me Rev., pastor, or even chaplain, but "Dude"??? It's so 70s, man.

As to your exasperated question, there certainly is talk of doing away with government marriages. The conversation usually goes like this:

1. If we're going to have gay marriages, what's next? Polygamy?

2. How would you regulate how many, or under what circumstances?

3. What if people set up group living arrangements for tax benefits, etc.

4. You know, government really shouldn't be in the business of approving or disapproving people's living arrangments, anyway. It ought to just revert to legalizing living partnerships.

5. Yeah, who's the government to say what's moral and what's "living in sin."

See where we're headed. If I'm not mistaken, people at this venue have expressed some of the above.

[BenRaines]

PC, gotta agree with you on that one. If homosexual marriage is ok then what about polygamy. I am sure that the polygamists, as against homosexual marriage as they are, are glad to see this because this is just the footstool for them to get it, polygamy, made legal. Then what if someone wants to marry their cat? or dog?

Well you know where it can go from there.

Ben Raines

[CaptainTux]

Yeah, PC has done his homework.

Most of the things people vote for or are for are things that make us feel good.

PRO life.

PRO choice

FOR the environment

FOR gay marriage

FOR traditional family values

With all decisions, we have to be judicious and ask the long term questions. We have to ask what this choice or that choice could lead to. The party in power at any given time has to know the reign will not last forever and the decision made now have to made carefully. If decisions are made solely on preference , then the power in charge a decade from now may have different preferences and one may have opened pandora's box to have something you cherish banned.

This is why I am opposed to banning of books. If I ban Huck Finn...what prevents one from banning the Bible? I have seen some libraries that have banned pro gay material including Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde over this issue (??????????). We have to be careful in all we do. One day the Bible and CS lewis may be on the do not read list.

This rant is off topic, but it falls into play about what some are saying here regarding the legal principles and precedents we set, be it condoning of gay marriage or over rule states rights when (constitutionally) the federal gvt is beholden to the states, not the other way around.

[prisonchaplain]

Just food for thought.

over 100 years ago an amendment very similar to this one came up, and was debated much like the one that just got tossed out. The LDS church fought against it with all it's might and cried foul and persecution cause it was targeting polygamy. Now 100 years later people are using the same arguments the church used against a very similar amendment. If it was unfair to act against a select group, or wrong for the states to loose control of this matter 100 yrs ago, is it really okay now? Or is it a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees?

A couple of thoughts: 1. Every law that approves/sanctions or disapproves/criminalizes is "against a select group of people. 2. Any law that would redefine/restrict/expand marriage is inherently a national issue, because judges have demonstrated a great willingness to overturn state laws and initiatives of this nature.

[CaptainTux]

2. Any law that would redefine/restrict/expand marriage is inherently a national issue, because judges have demonstrated a great willingness to overturn state laws and initiatives of this nature.

Okay, I am not sure I agree. We have slightly different laws on marriage (which defines the family) and divorce that vary from state to state. Different ages of consent, blood test yes or no, time frame of obtaining a license, who can perform ceremonies, no fault divorce or sue for divorce, etc.

However, my question on a national issue on this matter. Would it be best served, in your opinion, by the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch), Congress via a bill (Legislative Branch) signed by the president (executive branch) or a amendment to the constitution (that is handled by congress, right?)?

[prisonchaplain]

Okay, I am not sure I agree. We have slightly different laws on marriage (which defines the family) and divorce that vary from state to state. Different ages of consent, blood test yes or no, time frame of obtaining a license, who can perform ceremonies, no fault divorce or sue for divorce, etc.

Put simply, if a state authorizes a marriage, and the family unit moves to another state, can that state fail to also recognize it? If they can today, the day is surely coming when a judge will say otherwise.

However, my question on a national issue on this matter. Would it be best served, in your opinion, by the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch), Congress via a bill (Legislative Branch) signed by the president (executive branch) or a amendment to the constitution (that is handled by congress, right?)?

The purpose in seeking a constitutional amendment (very very difficult to pass, btw) is so that a judge cannot declare it void. Frankly, on this issue any less will not survive the judiciary's right of review.

You can say they changed on the basis of the revelation of polygamy, however then it means that they never really believed the arguments they used against the bill, they just didn't like being picked on.

Me guesses the church wanted to practice polygamy at the time, and left it to the lawyers to make whatever legal arguments needed to be made to achieve that end. It's purpose was not state's rights, but religious rights. Today, I'd speculate that the church wants to preserve the national moral consensus in favor of traditional marriage. I see the potential pitfalls either way, but the reality is that there will always be tension between the rights of the minority, and the will of the majority (democracy vs. individual rights).

[CaptainTux]

In Oklahoma, a minor under the age of 15 may marry with written consent of the parents. South Dakota law does not permit marriages for those under 16. So, let us pretend some parents in OK consent for the 15 year old son to wed a 22 year old woman. Then the 22 year old gets a job transfer to South Dakota. Will SD recognize the marriage of the couple? I do not know the answer.

If there is a ruling by the Supreme Court on a matter, a local judge cannot over rule it, can they? There are laws on the books that are passed by congress that are not amendments that cannot be overruled by local judges, aren't there? The first thing that comes to mind is the laws and rights of law enforcement contained in the Patriot act.

I am stepping into guess work here to be honest.

[Dror]

A couple of thoughts: 1. Every law that approves/sanctions or disapproves/criminalizes is "against a select group of people. 2. Any law that would redefine/restrict/expand marriage is inherently a national issue, because judges have demonstrated a great willingness to overturn state laws and initiatives of this nature.

All laws that approve/sanction or disapprove/criminalize are not against a select group of people. They either approve or disapprove particular actions, not people, unless you are in a place like Nazi Germany, where they officially disapproved Jews, gypsies, and (you guessed it!) homosexuals. In the US, people are prosecuted not for who they are, but for illegal actions they commit. So, unless some people are criminal by nature and cannot help but commit crimes, no, laws are not normally made against a select group of people.

I can see where you're coming from on point #2, but I guess it depends on how you look at it. As to the question of if a marriage allowed in one state is recognized in another, if there is a difference in what age you have to be, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that a marriage legally performed in one state is recognized in another state. Just keep your marriage certificate to show, if anybody asks. This may not apply to homosexual marriages, though, perhaps because it's such a hot political/moral topic and everybody's trying to make a statement.

Just food for thought.

over 100 years ago an amendment very similar to this one came up, and was debated much like the one that just got tossed out. The LDS church fought against it with all it's might and cried foul and persecution cause it was targeting polygamy. Now 100 years later people are using the same arguments the church used against a very similar amendment. If it was unfair to act against a select group, or wrong for the states to loose control of this matter 100 yrs ago, is it really okay now? Or is it a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees?

That's very interesting. I didn't know they pushed an anti-polygamy amendment. Do you happen to have the text of that proposed amendment, or know where I could find it? Also, this would seem to show that constitutional amendments are frequently unnecessary--even though that amendment failed to pass, it is still illegal to practice polygamy. So, the antis got what they wanted without having to pass the amendment. Similarly, in many states it is already illegal to perform gay marriages, and it looks like the trend is continuing. I don't know why some people seem to feel the need to pass a constitutional amendment for practically everything--a "mere" statute would suffice!

Dror

[honeybear]

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3922943

The act also dealt with the separation of church and state and with courts, militia, education, elections, immigration, and woman suffrage. Utah women had been granted the franchise in 1870, but now lost it. The act was enforced by the U. S. marshal and a host of deputies. Other matters dealt with by the act included:

* Required civil marriage licenses

* Required voters, jurors, and public officials to deny polygamy

* Replaced local judges with federally appointed judges

* Removed local control in school textbook choice

In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds-Tucker Act in The Late Corporation of the Mormon Church v. United States.

In 1882, Congress enacted the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which declared polygamy a felony. Hundreds of men and women were arrested and imprisoned for continuing to practice polygamy. Taylor had followed Joseph Smith's teachings on polygamy, and had at least seven wives. He is known to have fathered thirty-five children. Taylor and his counselors withdrew from public view to live in the "underground:" frequently on the move to avoid arrest. During his last public sermon Taylor remarked, "I would like to obey and place myself in subjection to every law of man. What then? Am I to disobey the law of God? Has any man a right to control my conscience, or your conscience? ...No man has a right to do it" (JD 26:152).

Many viewed LDS polygamy as religiously, socially and politically threatening. The U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, which abolished women's suffrage, forced wives to testify against their husbands, disincorporated the LDS church, dismantled the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, abolished the Nauvoo Legion, and provided that LDS church property in excess of $50,000 would be forfeited to the United States.

For two and a half years, President Taylor presided over the church from exile. The strain of his struggle took a great toll on his health. He died on July 25, 1887, from congestive heart failure in Kaysville, Utah.

For two years after his death, the church was without a presidency. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, with Wilford Woodruff as president of the quorum, assumed sole leadership in this interim period. In the April General Conference of 1889, the First Presidency was reorganized with Wilford Woodruff as the president. Six months later, in the October General Conference, Anthon H. Lund was called to fill President Taylor's vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

His eldest son, John W. Taylor, continued to serve in the church and in politics, and after the Church abandoned plural marriage as an essential church doctrine in 1890, helped to shepherd Utah to statehood in 1896.

Another son, William Whitaker Taylor, served as one of the first presidents of the Seventy and also served in the Utah Territorial Legislature.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3922943

The act also dealt with the separation of church and state and with courts, militia, education, elections, immigration, and woman suffrage. Utah women had been granted the franchise in 1870, but now lost it. The act was enforced by the U. S. marshal and a host of deputies. Other matters dealt with by the act included:

* Required civil marriage licenses

* Required voters, jurors, and public officials to deny polygamy

* Replaced local judges with federally appointed judges

* Removed local control in school textbook choice

In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds-Tucker Act in The Late Corporation of the Mormon Church v. United States.

In 1882, Congress enacted the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which declared polygamy a felony. Hundreds of men and women were arrested and imprisoned for continuing to practice polygamy. Taylor had followed Joseph Smith's teachings on polygamy, and had at least seven wives. He is known to have fathered thirty-five children. Taylor and his counselors withdrew from public view to live in the "underground:" frequently on the move to avoid arrest. During his last public sermon Taylor remarked, "I would like to obey and place myself in subjection to every law of man. What then? Am I to disobey the law of God? Has any man a right to control my conscience, or your conscience? ...No man has a right to do it" (JD 26:152).

Many viewed LDS polygamy as religiously, socially and politically threatening. The U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, which abolished women's suffrage, forced wives to testify against their husbands, disincorporated the LDS church, dismantled the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, abolished the Nauvoo Legion, and provided that LDS church property in excess of $50,000 would be forfeited to the United States.

For two and a half years, President Taylor presided over the church from exile. The strain of his struggle took a great toll on his health. He died on July 25, 1887, from congestive heart failure in Kaysville, Utah.

For two years after his death, the church was without a presidency. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, with Wilford Woodruff as president of the quorum, assumed sole leadership in this interim period. In the April General Conference of 1889, the First Presidency was reorganized with Wilford Woodruff as the president. Six months later, in the October General Conference, Anthon H. Lund was called to fill President Taylor's vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

His eldest son, John W. Taylor, continued to serve in the church and in politics, and after the Church abandoned plural marriage as an essential church doctrine in 1890, helped to shepherd Utah to statehood in 1896.

Another son, William Whitaker Taylor, served as one of the first presidents of the Seventy and also served in the Utah Territorial Legislature.

Were you going to give credit to Wikipedia for swiping their stuff, or do you just plagerize your stuff?

[honeybear]

Were you going to give credit to Wikipedia for swiping their stuff, or do you just plagerize your stuff?

Sorrry I will be glad to credit Wikipedia for this...I didn't swipe it it was right there in black and white...get the burr out of your boxers for crying out loud.

[Jason]

Sorrry I will be glad to credit Wikipedia for this...I didn't swipe it it was right there in black and white...get the burr out of your boxers for crying out loud.

No honeybear. If you use someone else's words without quoting your source, you have committed plagerism. That's what plagerism is dear.

[honeybear]

<div class='quotemain'>

Sorrry I will be glad to credit Wikipedia for this...I didn't swipe it it was right there in black and white...get the burr out of your boxers for crying out loud.

No honeybear. If you use someone else's words without quoting your source, you have committed plagerism. That's what plagerism is dear.

Yes Dear? I know and I said I was sorry. JS should have given the KJV of the Bible credit when he used it in the BOM...in the kings english don't you think?

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Sorrry I will be glad to credit Wikipedia for this...I didn't swipe it it was right there in black and white...get the burr out of your boxers for crying out loud.

No honeybear. If you use someone else's words without quoting your source, you have committed plagerism. That's what plagerism is dear.

Yes Dear? I know and I said I was sorry. JS should have given the KJV of the Bible credit when he used it in the BOM...in the kings english don't you think?

You said it, not me.