Magdalena
Well-known member
I believe both of you. He read it. You didn’t. And you’re trying to take the focus off of your unwillingness to do it by pointing some finger at Markk.
God complex, and belief Joseph Smith is a God.
- Thread starter Markk
- Start date
Richard7
Well-known member
Pointing fingers, nope not at all, he confessed before all us that he read the whole thing.
Magdalena
Well-known member
Yes, he read it. And you didn’t.
Richard7
Well-known member
No, I did not. The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 was enacted after JS was accused of it being illegal. They wrote the Act in stronger language because the law at the time of JS was vague.
Magdalena
Well-known member
Polygamy was illegal in Illinois in 1833…
"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99
Richard7
Well-known member
That is why the Edmund Act was written, to make plain the laws that were vague and hard to minister to others their rights.
The Edmunds-Tucker Act
Although the practice of plural marriage was the center of the firestorm, that was not the only point of contention between the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ in Salt Lake City and the U.S. government. Congress was also concerned about the lack of separation between church and state in the new territory.[3] The Edmunds-Tucker Act was not the first anti-polygamy legislation, but it addressed all of the issues in this dispute. It also threatened the Church of Jesus Christ with economic and political destruction if it didn’t abolish the practice of plural marriage. The legislation included the following:It disincorporated The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company. The assets were to be used for public schools in Utah Territory.
It prohibited immigration of Latter-day Saints from other countries to gather to Utah Territory.
It required prospective voters, jurors, and public officials to take an oath that they did not believe in or practice polygamy.
It annulled territory laws that allowed the children of plural wives to inherit property.
It required civil marriage licenses.
It abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists—meaning that plural wives would be required to testify against their husbands if subpoenaed.
It eliminated women’s suffrage—which had been granted by the Territorial legislature in 1870.
It replaced local judges with federally appointed judges.
It abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of Utah Territory the right to appoint a commissioner of schools.
It also allowed the federal government to confiscate Church property valued at more than $50,000.
But the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ did not yield, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act was enforced to the fullest extent. Through this legislation and its application, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was stripped of more than $1 million worth of property,[4] and more than 13,000 Latter-day Saints were disfranchised—meaning they lost their right to vote and serve on a jury. In addition, the election machinery was effectively taken out of the hands of the people.[5] More than 1,200 men who practiced polygamy were either fined or imprisoned for six months.[6]
The Church of Jesus Christ appealed the law, but the Supreme Court denied their petitions.
Magdalena
Well-known member
Polygamy was illegal in Illinois in 1833.That is why the Edmund Act was written, to make plain the laws that were vague and hard to minister to others their rights.
The Edmunds-Tucker Act
Although the practice of plural marriage was the center of the firestorm, that was not the only point of contention between the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ in Salt Lake City and the U.S. government. Congress was also concerned about the lack of separation between church and state in the new territory.[3] The Edmunds-Tucker Act was not the first anti-polygamy legislation, but it addressed all of the issues in this dispute. It also threatened the Church of Jesus Christ with economic and political destruction if it didn’t abolish the practice of plural marriage. The legislation included the following:
It disincorporated The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company. The assets were to be used for public schools in Utah Territory.
It prohibited immigration of Latter-day Saints from other countries to gather to Utah Territory.
It required prospective voters, jurors, and public officials to take an oath that they did not believe in or practice polygamy.
It annulled territory laws that allowed the children of plural wives to inherit property.
It required civil marriage licenses.
It abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists—meaning that plural wives would be required to testify against their husbands if subpoenaed.
It eliminated women’s suffrage—which had been granted by the Territorial legislature in 1870.
It replaced local judges with federally appointed judges.
It abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of Utah Territory the right to appoint a commissioner of schools.
It also allowed the federal government to confiscate Church property valued at more than $50,000.
But the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ did not yield, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act was enforced to the fullest extent. Through this legislation and its application, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was stripped of more than $1 million worth of property,[4] and more than 13,000 Latter-day Saints were disfranchised—meaning they lost their right to vote and serve on a jury. In addition, the election machinery was effectively taken out of the hands of the people.[5] More than 1,200 men who practiced polygamy were either fined or imprisoned for six months.[6]
The Church of Jesus Christ appealed the law, but the Supreme Court denied their petitions.
Richard7
Well-known member
It was no more then civil disobedience. Read in D&C 134
2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
Secondly, the civil government must not just defend freedom of conscience, but the free exercise of conscience must be inviolate. In the Reynolds decision on polygamy, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that all religious belief was protected by the first amendment, but that no religious practice was protected. Thus, one could believe anything one wanted, but one couldn’t do anything about it with constitutional safety. (The Reynolds decision is discussed in the next section of this paper.)
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
Religious belief and practice are to be left strictly alone; only those whose beliefs infringe upon the rights and practice of others should be charged under civil law.
5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
As long as citizens have such civil protection for their exercise of conscience, they are to honor the law. Of great significance is the proviso that believers must be “protected in their inherent and inalienable rights”–if such laws are mere window dressing, or are applied in an inconsistent fashion to a given people, then governments are not entitled to support in those areas, because this is the precise purpose for which government is instituted.
This anticipates the Nuremburg Principle–no one can be morally required to abrogate their commitment to duty or truth simply because the civil law declares otherwise, nor can one appeal to civil law as justification for violating a moral code.
7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.
This is a repetition of the idea–government exists, theologically, in large measure to protect the free exercise of religious belief. Government has no right to restrict such practice, unless those practices threaten the government or the rights of others.
A key point is that “regard and reverence” be “shown to the laws”–religious societies should respect the laws. But, respect for the law has no moral force to compel a change in behavior or belief that violates one’s religious convictions (unless such convictions threaten the rights of others).
Magdalena
Well-known member
It was illegal. You can try to justify, excuse or deny it all you want. It was illegal in Illinois in 1833, while Joseph Smith was running around doing it. Why do you think he had to hide from the law all the time. Between the polygamy, the threats to U.S. Government, fake bank, etc., he was always breaking laws.
Richard7
Well-known member
Not guilty Magdalena, for reasons here was no crime due to the Church's belief in Plural Marriage as a separation of state and religion.
History proves they changed there law specifically because they knew their law was weak and only a misdemeanor.
Under Illinois law, Joseph Smith and the Saints were not guilty of a crime due to their (LDS Church) private practice of plural marriage. In fact, the Illinois legislature would later alter their laws precisely because they feared that their current law would allow Mormon polygamy.
That may be the most ill-advised statement, you have said in a long time. CFR. You are just making that up. Are you saying that if a religion teaches human sacrifices, pedophilia, incest, robbery, or any crime ...they can do so under the establishment clause? What the heck are you thinking?
I suggest a study of Reynolds vs the USA...you have no idea what you are talking about, nor the case law on this subject.
Back up what you wrote with a legal citation that would agree with you assertion. Or retract it.
I told you the other day that in regard to the Edmunds Act, you should also look at other case law including Renyolds vs the USA...and you mocked me for doing a rather short study of a few days on the subject...
Read this challenge to the 1st amendment by a Mormon polygamous.
Click Here Ralf
False...CFR here is the law in 1833 Illinois revised law. You are probably quoting Fair without testing what they write. CFR where you got the quote. If you took it from Fair, go back and read how they tap dance around whether or not he was guilty, could not be convicted. Wake up Ralf. Joseph had many wives and by the definition of the law was guilty...period. Bradshaw is saying if he did it in secrete there was not enough proof. So, do you as a Mormon believe it is okay to break the law, as long as you are not caught, and you can lie your way out of it?
Section 121
Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this state, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive; the per- son so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and im- prisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said mar- riages by the register or certificate thereof, or other re- cord evidence; but the same may be proved by such ev- idence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred. Nothing herein contained shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall have been continually absent from such person or persons for the space of five years together, prior to the said second marriage, and he or she not knowing such husband or wife to be living within that time. Also nothing herein contained shall extend to any person that is or shall be at the time of such second marriage divorced by law- ful authority from the bands of such former marriage, or to any person where the former marriage hath been by lawful authority declared void.
Click Here Ralf
Magdalena
Well-known member
It was illegal in 1833, according to Illinois law. Joseph Smith knew that. It’s the reason he hid it. That and the fact that he thought Emma would kill him.
Article of Faith 12: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
Smith didn’t even keep his own rules.
Richard7
Well-known member
The revised laws of Illinois as quoted from your source.
by Illinois. General AssemblyThe act was passed in response to the perceived threat posed by polygamy, which was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in Utah.
Morrill Anti-bigamy Act of 1862 (1862)
Congress adopted the Morrill Act for the Suppression of Polygamy in response to a perceived threat posed by polygamy, practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
www.mtsu.edu
n 1862 Congress adopted the Morrill Act for the Suppression of Polygamy (also known as the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act), named for its sponsor, Justin S. Morrill, R-Vt. (pictured above). The act was passed in response to the perceived threat posed by polygamy, which was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in Utah. Although the Morrill Act proved to be largely unenforceable, it did lead to some successful prosecutions for bigamy, including in Reynolds v. United States (1879) in which the Supreme Court distinguished between the legal right to believe in polygamy under the First Amendment and the illegal right to practice it. (Image via Library of Congress, between 1855 and 1865, public domain)
Magdalena
Well-known member
Illegal in 1833. We’ve both posted it for you more than once. Ignoring it won’t make it go away.The revised laws of Illinois as quoted from your source.
by Illinois. General Assembly
The act was passed in response to the perceived threat posed by polygamy, which was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in Utah.
Morrill Anti-bigamy Act of 1862 (1862)
Congress adopted the Morrill Act for the Suppression of Polygamy in response to a perceived threat posed by polygamy, practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
n 1862 Congress adopted the Morrill Act for the Suppression of Polygamy (also known as the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act), named for its sponsor, Justin S. Morrill, R-Vt. (pictured above). The act was passed in response to the perceived threat posed by polygamy, which was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in Utah. Although the Morrill Act proved to be largely unenforceable, it did lead to some successful prosecutions for bigamy, including in Reynolds v. United States (1879) in which the Supreme Court distinguished between the legal right to believe in polygamy under the First Amendment and the illegal right to practice it. (Image via Library of Congress, between 1855 and 1865, public domain)
God complex, and belief Joseph Smith is a God.
I guess you didn't read my post either... I have said twice now that I did not read it... after he said it would take 1-2 days to read and research; I said to my self, not me and I don't believe he did either. But he confessed here on CARM forum he read the whole thing, every page... hmm I...
forums.carm.org
What is your point? Ralf, it was illegal. It was challenged, and it was held up to be illegal 9-0 in the supreme court. You made a non-sensible assertion the polygamy was legal because of the 1st amendment separation clause, which is far from being true.The revised laws of Illinois as quoted from your source.
by Illinois. General Assembly
The act was passed in response to the perceived threat posed by polygamy, which was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in Utah.
Morrill Anti-bigamy Act of 1862 (1862)
Congress adopted the Morrill Act for the Suppression of Polygamy in response to a perceived threat posed by polygamy, practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
n 1862 Congress adopted the Morrill Act for the Suppression of Polygamy (also known as the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act), named for its sponsor, Justin S. Morrill, R-Vt. (pictured above). The act was passed in response to the perceived threat posed by polygamy, which was practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in Utah. Although the Morrill Act proved to be largely unenforceable, it did lead to some successful prosecutions for bigamy, including in Reynolds v. United States (1879) in which the Supreme Court distinguished between the legal right to believe in polygamy under the First Amendment and the illegal right to practice it. (Image via Library of Congress, between 1855 and 1865, public domain)
What is your point about the Illinois law? Please explain yourself.
I missed this the first time, so your claim is that a misdemeanor is not a crime? The penalty for bigamy was...
"the per- son so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and im- prisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding two years"
1000 dollars in 1830ish is $32.000 in today's dollars, 2 years is a long time...if he had 30 wives and was convicted on 30 counts to run consecutively that would be 60 years in prison. From my reading of the Illinois law, at this point, a felony at the time was considered a "high misdemeanor." So please source you assertion above. Again, two years in a state penitentiary is not a jay walking penalty.
CFR.
Richard7
Well-known member
Like I stated at worst it was a misdemeanor and had no teeth like your source stated... that is why the Edmund Act passed by US Government came into play... it had teeth and it also confiscated Church assets. Why do you think they had to do a re-write Magdalena.
"Although the Morrill Act proved to be largely unenforceable,"
Magdalena
Well-known member
Why are you harping about laws that were passed 20, 30 or more years later? In 1833, polygamy was illegal in Illinois. That’s a fact. It was the law. Joseph Smith was breaking the law.
What are you afraid will happen if you acknowledge that?
Richard7
Well-known member
Yes I did, the whole argument was constitutional law... the separation of state and religion...
Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.
M. Scott Bradshaw, "Defining Adultery under Illinois and Nauvoo Law," in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, edited by Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2014), 401–426.
A review of Joseph's remarks in light of the circumstances under which they were spoken shows that Joseph's words were carefully chosen. In this speech, Joseph was specifically reacting to the indictments for perjury and adultery that were presented by the grand jury the day earlier. Thus, when Joseph affirmed during the same speech: "I am innocent of all these charges," he was in particular refuting a claim that he and Maria [Lawrence] had openly and notoriously cohabitated, thus committing the statutory offense of adultery. He was also refuting the perjury charge. While the overall tone of Joseph's remarks may seem misleading, it is understandable that Joseph would have taken pains to dodge the plural marriage issue. By keeping his plural marriages in Nauvoo secret, Joseph effectively kept them legal, at least under the Illinois adultery statute.[1]:413
- M. Scott Bradshaw, "Defining Adultery under Illinois and Nauvoo Law," in Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith's Legal Encounters, edited by Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2014), 401–426.