Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Nightingale ( )
Date: November 22, 2010 03:47PM

My intense interest in this issue (as evidenced by several threads now) is ramped up lately because of today being the first day of a scheduled two-month trial into the burning question: Should the anti-polygamy law in Canada be struck down (due to either being antiquated or unconstitutional).

The answer has ramifications for Bountiful, the fundamentalist Mormon polygamous commune in B.C. and for others who practice polygamy or wish to (such as immigrants from countries where polygamy is practiced and who come here with multiple wives already) and for other areas such as pension benefits and even 'same sex unions'.

It is going to be two months of non-stop media coverage and discussion about "fundamentalist Mormon" polygamy, as the Crown lawyer intends to use Bountiful as an example of the societal harm of a (fundamentalist/religious) polygamous lifestyle.

I again seriously put forth the idea that occurred to me over the weekend that this could possibly be why the Mormon Church is lately instructing its people and the media in the use of the church's new name: 'The Church of Jesus Christ'. That way they get rid of the quaint-sounding 'Latter-day Saints', 'LDS' and 'Mormon' in one fell swoop, just ahead of a trial and news coverage that is going to be all over the terms 'F-LDS' and 'Mormon'. Over the weekend a long newspaper article (referenced by me in another thread) made mention of the origins of Bountiful being with Joseph Smith, Mormon. It is gratifying to see these truths come out.

Events at trial so far today:

Application has been made to televise the court proceedings in this landmark case. If permission is granted, it will be the first time in British Columbia that a Supreme Court trial has been televised. A local TV reporter explained that proponents of having the case televised believe it is of “such colossal importance” to the people of Canada that every citizen should have the right to view the trial, as the issues are seen to be much broader than just those related to the small Mormon fundamentalist commune in Bountiful.

An article on the Global News web site states in part:

[Crown Counsel explains] "Direct evidence from Bountiful ... presents a consistently worrisome narrative of child brides, teen pregnancy, and men and boys who are, by accident or design, driven out of the community," government lawyer Craig Jones writes in his opening submissions to the court.

[Crown Counsel continues] "The harms documented at Bountiful are the perfectly predictable, indeed the inevitable, consequences of a polygamous society."

Background from the Global News article:

“A court in British Columbia will begin hearings Monday as it tackles a question that has been lingering over a small commune in southeastern British Columbia for nearly two decades: Is polygamy a crime, or is it a sacred religious practice protected by the constitution?

“That question, and the lack of a clear answer, has stood in the way of the province's repeated efforts to prosecute the leaders of Bountiful, B.C., an obscure fundamentalist Mormon community near the U.S. border where some residents readily admit to multiple marriages.

“But one observer predicts the B.C. case is just the first step in a process that will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, where a final decision could affect a range of issues from the definition of marriage to how prospective immigrants with multiple wives should be treated.

"This is much broader than Bountiful - if the law is struck down and polygamy becomes legally recognized, you start to see some pretty broad ramifications, things like pension benefits, immigration," says Vancouver-based constitutional lawyer Ron Skolrood, who isn't connected to the case.

"Think about the world of immigration law and some cultures where polygamy is accepted. If the law is struck down, what does that mean for immigration into Canada?"

“While the case may not end with Bountiful, it certainly began there.

“Police and Crown counsel in B.C. have been investigating Bountiful since the early 1990s, but shied away from laying charges amid concerns the laws against polygamy wouldn't survive a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“That reluctance changed in January 2009, when police swept into the community and charged Winston Blackmore and James Oler, the leaders of two separate, divided factions within Bountiful, with one count each of practising polygamy. Police alleged Blackmore has 19 wives and more than 100 children, and Oler was accused of having three wives.

“When the court threw out those charges because of how the province chose its prosecutors, the government referred the issue to the B.C. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a case that is expected to hear from more than two dozen witnesses and last until the end of January.

“The province asked the court whether the polygamy laws are consistent with the charter, and if a polygamous relationship must involve a minor or some form of abuse for criminal charges to be laid. Such reference cases aren't technically binding, but legal experts have said other courts would likely adopt the eventual ruling, particularly if it is heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

“More than a dozen interveners have applied to be involved, including religious groups and women's rights organizations. The trial is expected to hear from between 30 and 40 witnesses including experts, former and current residents of Bountiful, and people who live in so-called polyamorous relationships that aren't part of a specific religion.”

http://www.globalnews.ca/court+make+polygamy+decision/3865964/story.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2010 03:52PM by Nightingale.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heresy ( )
Date: November 22, 2010 04:11PM

The same questions of constitutionality dog the US's polygamy laws.

Please keep us updated, I enjoy your posts.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: vhainya ( )
Date: November 22, 2010 04:11PM

Please keep us updated.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Nightingale ( )
Date: November 22, 2010 04:14PM

For the record, the phrase "colossal importance" comes from the campaigners to get the trial televised. I agree with their viewpoint though! It is important. It is colossal. It is fascinating. And it's on topic for this board. So I'm happy!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Gwylym ( )
Date: November 22, 2010 04:45PM

I don't think polygyny or polyandry should be illegal. But I am totally against the marrying of underage girls (or boys) to much older (or even younger) men. I think that anyone who takes part in the abuse of children should be put away for life. Consenting ADULTS should be able to do what they like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2010 04:46PM by Gwylym.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Raptor Jesus ( )
Date: November 22, 2010 05:03PM

I think it is a ridiculous relationship. But who am I to tell other people who they can and can't be with.

However, I would like another caveat to go with the (no molesting the children rule).

Change the tax code too. No tax incentives for more than one wife, no tax breaks for the children. No insurance company should have to cover everyone without the payer paying a giant premium. No WIC, welfare, eligibility for the family that practices this. Etc.

Love is one thing, but these families need to be more self sustaining.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Nina ( )
Date: November 22, 2010 05:18PM

I recall the thread about it @ babycenter, when "Sister Wives" was discussed. Some posters worried about the morg reverting back to it. Most LDS posters said they wouldn't stand for it, but since it's still LDS canon, who knows? I wonder what the TSCC would do if it was legal again. One thing is sure. No more converts (no $$$), and any Presidential hopeful... forget that one.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: EverAndAnon ( )
Date: November 22, 2010 05:48PM

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I again seriously put forth the idea that occurred
> to me over the weekend that this could possibly be
> why the Mormon Church is lately instructing its
> people and the media in the use of the church's
> new name: 'The Church of Jesus Christ'.

Huh? All the offical websites still use COJCOLDS.

Can you elaborate?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Nightingale ( )
Date: November 22, 2010 06:00PM

I saw a post about this last week. The new instructions to members and media, apparently, are to use 'The Church of Jesus Christ' rather than LDS even and certainly before 'Mormon'. Maybe I misunderstood the poster's point? Can someone clarify? Is the instruction to use 'CoJCoLDS' at the first mention and then 'The Church of Jesus Christ' rather than 'LDS' or 'Mormon'?

Even if so, is it coincidental timing?

There is a thread somewhere on a page further back where we discussed the appropriateness of the name 'Church of Jesus Christ'. I posted about how others have used that name already.

I'll try to find it...

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  *******   **     **   *******   **     **  ******** 
 **     **  **     **  **     **  **     **  **    ** 
 **     **  **     **  **     **  **     **      **   
  ********  *********   ********  *********     **    
        **  **     **         **  **     **    **     
 **     **  **     **  **     **  **     **    **     
  *******   **     **   *******   **     **    **