Arkansas court rules that Mormonism is not Protestantism

The Arkansas Court of Appeals recently handed down an unusual ruling in which a man was held in contempt for involving his children in the LDS Church. Actually, it's not as dramatic as it sounds. When Joel and Lisa Rownak divorced in 2005 they agreed that their two children would be raised "in the Protestant faith." Since this agreement was entered as part of the divorce decree, it was enforceable by the court.  Subsequent to their divorce, Joel Rownak converted to Mormonism and involved his two sons in his new faith, including baptizing one of the boys. Rownak made several free speech arguments, but the Arkansas court still found in contempt of the decree. The court relied heavily on the fact that Rownak himself had asked for the language to be placed in the divorce decree.
The interesting part of this case, as it relates to the Mormon Church, is the court's discussion of whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a Protestant church. The court noted:

Based upon testimony by appellant’s wife, a statement by the president of LDS that was publicized on the church’s website, and testimony by appellant, the court found the LDS church not to be a Protestant faith and found that appellant had promoted the LDS faith to his sons.

Ark. App. CA08-193 p. 4. The question of whether Mormons are Protestants is mildly interesting, but it's fairly clear cut. The Arkansas court didn't seem to have much trouble coming to its conclusion. It would be more interesting if the divorce decree had required the children to be brought up "in the Christian faith." Then you would have a U.S. court attempting to determine an issue about which there is significant disagreement among various denominations. What sources would a court consult in determining whether Mormonism is part of Christianity? Would a court consult the LDS.org website, like the Arkansas court did on the Protestant issue? Or would the court instead rely on other religious authority outside of the LDS Church? And is even proper for a court to determine such controversial issues?
As much as I'd like to see the outcome of such a case, it probably isn't the sort of dispute that a court should resolve. In the Arkansas case there really wasn't much of a dispute over whether Mormonism was Protestantism. But it still raises some significant constitutional questions. On this topic UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh opined:

I think there are substantial limits on the enforceability of such contracts. The church property cases held that courts generally can't make theological decisions, such as which claimant's views are closer to orthodox (with a small "o") Presbyterianism; and I think the logic extends also to the interpretation of contracts, wills, and trusts that call for such decisions. Nor can courts avoid this constitutional barrier by trying to figure out what the majority of members of a religion thinks (hard to do reliably, plus it assumes the conclusion of who constitutes "members of a religion," and it privileges majority denominations within a religious group over minority denominations). And courts usually can't avoid the constitutional barrier, I think, by asking what the parties intended the term to mean — the best test of a word's intent is usually the word itself, and that is the very thing that calls for theological decisionmaking.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals' decision is available here.

Survey for LDS Law Students and Undergraduates

The following is a public service announcement on behalf of a group of BYU Public Relations students. They're doing some research on how students make educational decisions, especially how they decide which law school to attend. The quizzes are just 10 simple questions, so please take a moment to fill them out.

Take the LDS Law Students survey here.

Take the LDS Undergraduate survey here.

A Good Lawyer

Here's a few thoughts on the legal life and work of President James E. Faust, who passed away last week at age 87.

A quote from President Faust in the Spring 2003 Clark Memorandum, p. 7:

The pursuit of justice is a very noble path, but obtaining justice is often very elusive …. In some ways a more noble effort is to resolve differences by being a peacemaker.

From his obituary in the Deseret News:

The son of an attorney and judge, President Faust gravitated naturally to a law career. After claiming a juris doctorate from the University of Utah Law School in 1948, he practiced law in Salt Lake City until his call as an Assistant to the Twelve on Oct. 6, 1972.

Public service was a notable element of President Faust's life during his professional career. He served as a Democratic member of the Utah Legislature from 1949-1951. He also served as an adviser to the American Bar Journal and was president of the Utah Bar Association in 1962-1963. He was also appointed by President John F. Kennedy to the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights and Racial Unrest.

From an address to the BYU Law School on November 22, 1987:

The canons of ethics and the rules of court with which you must be familiar are helpful rules of conduct to abide by, but I have always believed that they are the lesser law. An attorney's own careful conscience and his own standards of high integrity ultimately ought to govern his conduct.

D&C as required reading in law school

Over on Prawfsblawg, the group blog for several law professors, Paul Horwitz has a post up on teaching the "Mormon" cases in a Law & Religion class at Notre Dame. Horwitz thinks they represent a unique opportunity to look at the relationship between religion and politics. Says Horwitz:

[A]dding this material opens up a far broader set of questions, many of which have broader resonance both for the question of Free Exercise accommodation and for the relationship between religion and the state in general.

Interestingly, Horwitz quotes Wildford Woodriff's address regarding the Manifesto on polygamy, now contained in Official Declaration 1 of the Doctrine & Covenants. He says, "It seems to me that professors who teach law and religion ought to include the Revelation in their reading materials."

How to Balance Religious Beliefs and Public Service

There is a lively debate going on over at the New Republic Web site (free registration required) between Damon Linker, author of The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege, and Richard Bushman, History Professor at Columbia University and author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. The discussion is lively, intelligent, and civil -- I recommend it to any interested parties. I was particularly intrigued, however, by a segment from Linker's initial article that sparked the debate. Towards the end of the essay, Linker says:

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution famously stipulates that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Though the Framers meant to prohibit a test compelling office-seekers to affirm a particular set of religious views, it makes sense to treat the proscription as applying negatively as well--as prohibiting a test that would exclude members of certain religious sects from holding office. In our time of heightened sectarian tensions--when devout believers and secularists increasingly perceive themselves to be stationed on opposite sides of a cultural chasm--it is crucially important that Americans remain committed to allowing every qualified citizen to run for public office, regardless of his or her religious views.

But defending the constitutional right of every qualified citizen to run for office is not the same as saying that a candidate's religious views should be a matter of indifference to voters. In the case of Mitt Romney, citizens have every reason to seek clarification about the character of his Mormonism. Does he believe, for example, that we are living through the "latter days" of human history, just prior to the second coming of Christ? And does he think that, when the Lord returns, he will rule over the world from the territory of the United States? Does Romney believe that the president of the Mormon Church is a genuine prophet of God? If so, how would he respond to a command from this prophet on matters of public policy? And, if his faith would require him to follow this hypothetical command, would it not be accurate to say that, under a President Romney, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would truly be in charge of the country--with its leadership having final say on matters of right and wrong?

Linker's argument, of course, should sound familiar to those acquainted with the debate before John F. Kennedy was elected president. But it presents an interesting and vital question that public figures must consider: to what extent, if at all, should personal beliefs govern political decisions? This is all the more important if we consider how personal beliefs affect the decisions of judges, something Richard Bushman alludes to in his response to the essay. And I would submit that ethical attorneys must also ask themselves the same question: to what extent should my personal beliefs affect my legal practice?

In his response, Bushman notes that, per the Church's Web site, "[e]lected officials who are Latter-Day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated church position." Similarly, LDS judges and attorneys must make their own decisions which may not necessarily correspond exactly with Church positions.

Most Latter-day Saints involved in the law profession would probably agree that personal beliefs have a place in their practice, but the extent of its influence likely varies by person. Now that Mitt Romney has official declared his presidential candidacy, his balance of personal belief and public duty will doubtless be an issue of continued scrutiny. This gives each of us a chance to reexamine our own beliefs and the role they play in our profession.

My personal opinion is that religious beliefs can make attorneys more compassionate and conscientious legal advocates. However, I also believe that an attorney is beholden to the public and to the clients he or she represents, and that these obligations may temper or even supersede Church directives. At some point, every attorney must make his or her own decision regarding the balance of obligations. Now that his candidacy is official, former Governor Romney will try to convince the public that he has made the same determination.

Sustain'd

Those of you who follow the myriad of social networking features now available on the Web will be familiar with community-driven Web sites. Members submit articles, usually by clicking on a button on the page or through a browser plug-in, and the most popular articles are aggregated on the community page. One such service is digg, with a little digging man logo and "digg this!" buttons on many Web pages.

Last month LDS blogger Connor Boyack decided the LDS Web community deserved its own community site. Boyack created Sustain'd, a digg-like service focused exclusively on content that would interest the LDS community. The Sustain'd icon, featuring a little man raising his right arm, plays on both the digg icon and the LDS tradition of sustaining Church members in their callings. Boyack has been working furiously to get Sustain'd ready by General Conference, and the word went out today that the system will go live this Friday.

I think this is a great idea. I really like using LDS blog aggregators (like LDSelect and Planet LDS, in the sidebar) to keep track of Mormon blogs, and I think Sustain'd will be an interesting addition to the bloggernacle. We'll try to get Sustain'd working on LDS Law Students when it comes on line, but in the meantime, check out Sustaind.org by clicking on the icon in the sidebar or read the Sustain'd blog.