posted
I have wanted to post this news story for a couple weeks, but couldn't track down the truth. Most of the places I read the story come from Evangelical Christian sites that often twist the truth about any other religion to the level of yellow journalism. However, I finally found a respectful post about the decision and couldn't believe it happpened.
Basically, a U.S. Court has upheld a divorce decree that says that Mormons are not Protestants. I am not saying that Mormons are Protestants, but I think that Court has gone against the U.S. Constitution for making a case based on the definition. That is because, like it or not, deciding what is or is not Protestant is a theological statement. Worse, many of those Evangelical Christian sites have used this to say that the law has proclaimed Mormonism non-Christian.
I would think that the Seperation of Church and State supporters would be all over this. From what I have seen there is a collective who cares. I know that the defendant hasn't challenged the ruling, but I am surprised no one else has. Some might say it is just about upholding a private contract, but the implications aren't that great. As long as its in a private contract then the Constitution doesn't matter I guess.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no problem with a court recognizing that Mormons are not Protestant.
The constitutional issue arises from the court enforcing such a contract. I haven't analyzed the issue thoroughly, but I think enjoining a parent from promoting his faith to his children, even in response to such a contract, likely violates both the establishment and free exercise clauses.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honest question: What does "protestant faith," mean? It seems like, since that clause was in the divorce agreement, any dispute over that clause could end up being adjudicated by the courts, and in such a situation, the court is going to have to rule on what "protestant," means as an important question of fact before the court.
Was the ruling that mormons are not protestant wrong? right? Because it looks like the question had to be answered, because of the private contract between parties. Either that or the court had to rule that the peice of the contract was invalid, or outside the realm of the courts. Which then means that certain contracts could be un-enforceable legally.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems to me this is simply a matter of the court upholding the terms of a contract. The issue of religion was brought up at the request of the couple in their divorce settlement, not by the court.
If the court has to be blind to the difference between religions, then it wouldn't be able to to enforce contracts between religious entities.
As to whether the Mormon faith is protestant, the fact that the father was originally Baptist speaks to that. Sounds to me like the contract was trying not to be so limiting as to prevent either parent from attending a Methodist church, or Presbyterian, or whatever, but would prevent them from promoting a faith with substantially different doctrine. The LDS faith certainly wouldn't qualify as protestant under those terms.
Actually I've heard of similar clauses in divorce before. They arise from religious doctrine that that a couple should raise the children in the church that the couple was married in.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I see a problem with the Court recognizing Mormons are not Protestants exactly because it violates both the establishment and free exercise clauses. The whole point of the recognition was to see if the contract was broken.
Worse for me is that many Protestants have used this as a legal statement that Mormons are not Christian, a highly theological pronouncement. As you well know there is the idea that if you are not Protestant or Catholic (and some even say if you are not Protestant and leave it at that) then you are not Christian. That is legally highly suspect to me.
"Actually I've heard of similar clauses in divorce before. They arise from religious doctrine that that a couple should raise the children in the church that the couple was married in."
That is just sick and wrong. Such contracts should be immediately invalidated.
"If the court has to be blind to the difference between religions, then it wouldn't be able to to enforce contracts between religious entities."
Can you give me some examples, because on the face I don't think they should uphold contracts between religious entities.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, I see a problem with the Court recognizing Mormons are not Protestants exactly because of violates both the establishment and free exercise clauses. The whole point of the recognition was to see if the contract was broken.
The court recognizing that religions are categorized in certain ways does not violate the establishment or free exercise clause.
The court ordering someone to be silent about their religious beliefs in front of their children likely does. This would be true even if the court did not have to actually make a theological determination.
quote:Worse for me is that many Protestants have used this as a legal statement that Mormons are not Christian, a highly theological pronouncement. As you well know there is the idea that if you are not Protestant or Catholic (and some even say if you are not Protestant and leave it at that) then you are not Christian. That is legally highly suspect to me.
This strikes me as a horrible reason to think something legally suspect. In fact, were a court to cite it as a reason for not making such a determination, it would be more likely to be entangling religion, because it would be recognizing a purely theological conclusion as a reason to not make a factual determination.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be the court recognizing a theological disagreement that they have no right to decide.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be the court recognizing a theological disagreement that they have no right to decide.
There is no theological disagreement here. Mormons do not consider themselves Protestants. Protestants do not consider Mormons to be Protestants. What's the disagreement?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Chimera said... Since when are Mormons not Protestants?
Fri Oct 10, 02:57:00 PM EDT Anonymous said... Since they are a non-Christian cult.
Any questions?"
Since for many "not Protestant" means "not Christian" I find it hard to believe some day this ruling will not be used to make a statement about Mormons (or even Catholics) as not Christian.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Chimera said... Since when are Mormons not Protestants?
Fri Oct 10, 02:57:00 PM EDT Anonymous said... Since they are a non-Christian cult.
Any questions?"
So? The fact that someone makes an incorrect statement upon which the court did not rely does not mean the court made that statement.
quote:Since for many "not Protestant" means "not Christian" I find it hard to believe some day this ruling will not be used to make a statement about Mormons (or even Catholics) as not Christian.
Court rulings are about factual or legal issues. In this case, it was about a question of fact: are Mormons Protestants? The answer to that question is no. There's no dispute about this.
The fact that the statement "Mormons are not Protestants" can be used as the premise in an argument about which there is theological dispute does not mean courts should not make that statement.
Edit: My basic premise is that it is inappropriate for the court to worry about how its ruling will be used in a purely theological dispute.
If the court were ruling on whether Mormons were Christian, I had have a significant problem with it, because that question is actually the subject of a theological dispute.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the court were ruling on whether Mormons were Christian, I had have a significant problem with it, because that question is actually the subject of a theological dispute.
So the difference, from your perspective, is that it is commonly accepted that Mormons are not Protestants, but it is not yet commonly accepted that Mormons are not Christians, and therefore the court is only able to rule on the first and not the second?
I'm not sure I understand this distinction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, what do you think the intent of the parents was, including this requirement in the divorce agreement? Would the father's action have been in accordance with the intent of the agreement?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Would the father's action have been in accordance with the intent of the agreement?
This is a telling question. If the contract itself is enforceable, then the court's job was to determine what the parties most likely meant at the time of signing when they used the word "Protestant." Not what anyone else in the world means by it, although that would certainly be evidence.
Quick and obvious example: when a person contracts with a lumber mill for 12' 2x4 boards, a court will find the mill in compliance if the boards are 1.5 x 3.5 - a 35% reduction in volume of wood. Yet, if the boards were 2 inches too short - a reduction of 1.4% in volume - the court would likely award damages. Why? Because terms in a contract are defined based on what the parties meant at time of signing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The former does not require the court to resolve a theological dispute.
So if the Mormon church claimed to be Protestant, it would be inappropriate for the court to resolve that?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Occasional, what do you think the intent of the parents was . . ."?
I don't care what the intent of the parents were. It goes against the U.S. Constitution and was used to decide a custody case. I do wonder what would have happened if the father became a Muslim. Would the kids still be taken away?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The custody decision was based on the provision that the parents chose to put in the divorce agreement. The agreement was that they wouldn't change the children's religious upbringing unless both parents agreed.
I know you have a persecution complex the size of Mars, but this isn't about anti-Mormonism. It's about a decision that the parents made as part of their custody arrangment.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Can you give me some examples, because on the face I don't think they should uphold contracts between religious entities.
The ability to enter into legal contracts doesn't have anything to do with religion. This is just bind outrage at anything that has to do with the legal system and religious groups.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons are not Protestant. I was raised Protestant and am now LDS and on both sides of the coin, I know that distinction is true.
I do think that the father should be able to take his kids to church. The church's own rules state that a parent whether custodial or non-custodial cannot baptize the children, allow themm to be ordained, etc. without consent of the other parent unless the parent has legally waived his/her parental rights. So it's not like the kids are going to join his church without their mother's consent. The father should have the ability to change his faith without custody being impacted, IMO-- but then, I think they probably should never have put such a clause in the divorce decree to begin with, since enforcing it would be interfering with him exercising his religion.
My mom had us baptized Presbyterian and raised us in that church; my dad took us to Catholic Mass. This despite having stood up and agreed that we would be raised Presbyterian when we were baptized. My mom never objected (she objected more when he didn't take us to church at all, but understood that she had no control over that.) (And my aunt and uncle are Lutheran, and on the other side aunt and uncle are Southern Baptist, my grandma is Baptist, my other grandma is Catholic, my sister is non-denominational Christian, my mom is now Episcopalian, my brother is neo-pagan... I learned a lot about religious tolerance growing up in my family.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My mom had us baptized Presbyterian and raised us in that church; my dad took us to Catholic Mass. This despite having stood up and agreed that we would be raised Presbyterian when we were baptized.
I am Presbyterian, all four of my children have been baptized in Presbyterian churches and I have witnessed dozens if not hundreds of infant baptisms in the Presbyterian church and I've never witnessed one where the parents pledged to raise children Presbyterian.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The arguments everyone is making are all stating "Mormons aren't Protestants." I think that was the statement Occasional had problems with.
The argument that "Upholding this requirement is against freedom of religion". I would think that denying this requirement is against freedom of religion. It was their version of the Baptist faith that made them promise, in writing, to raise their children in what they considered a "Protestant" faith.
If the courts ruled that "You can't follow that tenet of your faith" wouldn't that be blocking their freedom of religion?
Suppose the contract had stated, "You will only serve them Kosher food?" If there was some debate about whether the Sno-Cones at the fair were Kosher, couldn't the court judge on whether the parent upheld that part of the contract?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The argument that "Upholding this requirement is against freedom of religion". I would think that denying this requirement is against freedom of religion. It was their version of the Baptist faith that made them promise, in writing, to raise their children in what they considered a "Protestant" faith.
The right to change one's religious beliefs is an essential element of religious freedom. The right to teach one's current beliefs is another essential element of religious freedom.
I can see arguments in favor of enforcing this contract, although I don't think I agree with them. I don't buy, however, that enforcing the contract is somehow more beneficial to religious freedom than not enforcing the contract.
quote:If the courts ruled that "You can't follow that tenet of your faith" wouldn't that be blocking their freedom of religion?
But the court wouldn't be ruling that if it refused to enforce the contract.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the most horrible parts of divorce with kids is not having a say in how the kids are disciplined, taught, fed, and what they are exposed to when they are with the other parent. So I have some sympathy for their intent when they made the agreement at the time of the divorce. Also, it basically says that one parent can't change the kids religious upbringing without the other parent's consent -- so all the father has to do is convince the mother that it would be okay to take the kids to church. Granted, the fact that they've already brought the court into it doesn't bode well for their chances of coming to a new agreement on this one.`
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading about it it sounds to me like they have my parents' kind of divorce. The non-"amicable" kind. The kind where they're going to drag everything and anything into court and possibly lie about each other and accuse each other of all kinds of things.
I feel really sorry for the kids, coming from that experience myself.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I have some sympathy for their intent when they made the agreement at the time of the divorce.
I have tons of sympathy for their intent. And the father is certainly breaking his word here. I'm just not sure there should be a legal remedy.
One thing to remember is that parental contracts about child-rearing are always conditioned on the best interest of the child. It is the idea that the court must judge whether a restriction on presenting different religious beliefs to one's children is in their best interest that gives me the real heebie-jeebies here, over and above the parents' free exercise rights.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I imagine that it is somewhat akin to the heartache this mother must feel.
I can't imagine what either parent is feeling. But the father has the same reasons for heartache plus he's been prevented from teaching his children his religious beliefs and possibly lost custody of his children to boot, although reports are inconsistent in this regard.
quote: The church's own rules state that a parent whether custodial or non-custodial cannot baptize the children, allow themm to be ordained, etc. without consent of the other parent unless the parent has legally waived his/her parental rights.
According to the court opinion, he had one of his sons baptized. Presumably, the mother did not consent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As their mother would have been prevented from teaching her religious beliefs had she converted. As she would have had to deal with the fear of having her children indoctrinated had the decision gone the other way.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormon's aren't protestants. We admit that freely, in fact we are proud of the fact that we aren't protestants so I thinks its more than a bit intellectual dishonest for a LDS to be upset by a court ruling that we aren't protestant.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons are not Protestants. I agree with the court's finding in that regard. I don't agree that it is a source of pride, but it is definitely a key part of our identity. We were not created in protest.
In other regards: What a blooming mess. Holy crap.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: Can you elaborate on why this is a source of pride?
Yes, but it will probably offend some people although that is not my intent.
Perhaps pride isn't exactly the right word but it isn't the wrong word either.
As Latter-Day-Saints we believe that key doctrines which distinguish us from other Christian church and specifically from Protestants make our church more correct, more authoritative and more pleasing to God.
Protestant Church can usually be said to have broken away from the Catholic Church and can generally trace their origins back to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and other leaders of the reformation. Although scholars may view it differently, the Mormon Church rejects the idea that we broke off from any other Christian church or tradition. We believe that our Church was found through revelation from God and a restoration to Joseph Smith of the Priesthood keys originally given to Peter.
According to Wikipedia, Protestantism is distinguished by 3 key doctrines: the supremacy of the Bible, salvation by faith and the universal priesthood. Mormonism rejects all three of these doctrines as fallacious.
So while we do not teach that we as individuals are better than Protestants, we do believe and teach that our church is better than other Christian Churches because our doctrines are more correct and our leaders have Priesthood keys from Jesus Christ which other churches do not have.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The church's own rules state that a parent whether custodial or non-custodial cannot baptize the children, allow themm to be ordained, etc. without consent of the other parent unless the parent has legally waived his/her parental rights.
According to the court opinion, he had one of his sons baptized. Presumably, the mother did not consent.
Well, my opinions of his actions change somewhat if that is true.
He is not only disrespecting the beliefs of the mother but violating long-standing church policy, and quite possibly lying to or misleading his local church leadership, since consent of the non-custodial parent is always supposed to be obtained.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We also believe that our church is the restoration of the church established by Christ, as revealed by angels and direct communication with God, while Protestant churches have origins in rejecting the doctrines of the Catholic church (that would be where the world "Protestant" comes from.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure why you single out Protestants, since the Catholic church is the one that make the claim to be descended from the original church, but okay.
I'm also not seeing in your reasons anything that makes this much different from the usual "we're more right than them for reasons x, y and z"
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we were talking about the difference between Protestants and Mormons, not Mormons and Catholics.
We already agree that Mormons aren't Catholic, right?
I'm saying that we're not Protestant because even though some people use Protestant as a term for "Christian but not Catholic," that is a false definition of the term. Protestants have a very specific heritage as a group of churches, and Mormons do not share that heritage.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Because we were talking about the difference between Protestants and Mormons, not Mormons and Catholics.
We already agree that Mormons aren't Catholic, right?
Yep. I was referring to this:
quote:...which distinguish us from other Christian church and specifically from Protestants...
My point was that I don't see how these points are more distinguishing from Protestant churches than they are from the Catholic church. Specifically because the line from Peter being important is a not at all a Protestant thing, but is specifically Catholic. Rabbit's other points are directly addressed to Protestantism, though.
I'm not actually trying to argue anything here (or earlier). Not being a Protestant church as a point of pride just seemed a little strange so I thought I'd ask.
And yes I agree completely that Protestant doesn't mean 'not Catholic', but rather is a specific for churches that broke from the Catholic church during the Protestant Reformation.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: As you well know there is the idea that if you are not Protestant or Catholic (and some even say if you are not Protestant and leave it at that) then you are not Christian.
There might be a few Orthodox Christians that would wipe the floor with anyone who said that... Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read a very funny article about Armenian Orthodox and Armenian Catholic (I think those were the religions) monks fighting at a shrine with brooms last year. Over who got to clean it when, I think it was.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: I'm not sure why you single out Protestants, since the Catholic church is the one that make the claim to be descended from the original church, but okay.
I'm also not seeing in your reasons anything that makes this much different from the usual "we're more right than them for reasons x, y and z"
I think you are making a bit too much out my wording, when I said "specifically protestants" I meant only that the reasons. I think its highly unlikely that there would be any confusion or disagreement over whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is or is not the Catholic Church (or for that matter the Greek Orthodox Church or the Coptic Church or the Armenian Church). On the other hand, given the time and location in which the LDS Church was founded, it is highly likely that the LDS church could be mistaken as a Protestant Church.
Historically, the LDS Church leaders have published various statements and even books that clearly distinguish us as different from the Protestant movement. I am not aware of any such statements regarding Catholicism or other ancient branches of Christianity. This isn't because we are more similar to these churches but a simple reflection of history surrounding the church.
[ October 13, 2008, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people who were instrumental in the founding of the church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and most of the early converts to the church, had been Protestant before they joined. So we have lots of Protestant hymns and stuff. We've sort of have the look and feel of a Protestant church, to someone who glances in. But yeah, we're definitely not Protestant.
We're closer to the ideas of the Catholics in some ways, because we believe that priesthood authority must come through authorized channels from the original source. We also have a living Prophet at any given time, who guides the church with new revelations for the modern day. Our prophet is in some senses similar to the Pope. But we're different from Catholics in a lot of ways too. We believe that every worthy male should hold and exercise the priesthood, we don't believe in literal transubstantiation, we don't believe in infant baptism, or in confession and absolution of sins as a sacrament (or ordinance), we do believe in baptism for the dead, and in sealings, etc.
I was raised Catholic, became an atheist for most of my adult life, then converted to LDS about a decade ago, so I see the differences and the similarities both.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The custody decision was based on the provision that the parents chose to put in the divorce agreement. The agreement was that they wouldn't change the children's religious upbringing unless both parents agreed. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
