Top court hears dispute dividing polygamist sect
 
By Matthew Brown
Associated Press Writer
 
SALT LAKE CITY - Feuding factions of a polygamist sect on the Utah-Arizona border took their dispute to the Utah Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing whether the religion's leaders can evict dissidents from their homes.

A 5th District judge ruled more than a year and a half ago that leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must compensate dissenters if they want to boot them from their homes in the Short Creek Valley.

But leaders of the polygamist clan that operates a communal economy in the adjacent towns of Hildale and Colorado City, Ariz., appealed, saying the former followers knew the rules and the state can't dictate what a church teaches its members.

"Religious leaders spelling out the rules of conduct in their sermons should not have to look over their shoulders at what jurists may be thinking," argued attorney Raymond Scott Berry. "The religious body deserves some protection."

The court took the matter under advisement, but not before telling Berry that his clients can't use the state's "legal machinery" to accomplish only their ends, and prevent others who may feel wronged by the church from doing the same.

"You claim a legal right to be upheld by the state, but you oppose the state looking to see if that legal right can be upheld," said Chief Justice Michael Zimmerman.

The longstanding dispute between the church's United Effort Plan Trust and 21 families who have left the group focuses on a primary tenet of the faith - that all property is held in common.

The trust began more than 50 years ago when a group disagreed with the Mormon Church's disavowal of polygamy and established a "kingdom of God" in Short Creek Valley.

About 5,000 people live in the two border towns and the polygamists living there are among the 25,000 to 30,000 polygamists that scholars estimate live in the West.

Berry said adherents knew that when they built a home in the valley the building would belong to the church. "Building a home was an act of religious devotion and it was considered giving to the church," he said.

"When anyone puts money in the collection plate at church it establishes that the intention is to contribute to the church."

While no trust deeds or documents were exchanged spelling out conditions of belonging to the trust, Berry said the rules were explained over the pulpit and everyone should have known that the valley was holy ground to be occupied by the faithful.

But no one knew if they disagreed with their leaders they would be homeless, countered attorney Reid Lambert, representing the families that sued the trust. "(Dissidents) were either prayed out, bought out or left alone," he said.

Lambert said a change in leadership in the mid-1980s created a schism. The new leaders issued an edict telling followers they were "tenants at will" in their homes and those out of harmony with the church would be evicted.

Before then, the general understanding was that if someone left the faith and moved away, their house reverted to the trust and couldn't be sold, he said.

"When these people were building their houses, they didn't think they were making a donation like paying their tithing," Lambert said.

"They thought they were building a house" on trust property. He said the lower court agreed, ruling that not compensating those who disagreed with their leaders would be "unjust enrichment" of the church

The disaffected families still occupy their homes in the Hildale-Colorado City area and believe the trust leaders are the apostates to the church's millennial mission to prepare for Jesus Christ's return.

"I'm not a joiner, but I still go to meetings and associate," plaintiff and Colorado City resident Cyril Bradshaw said later.

"My opinion is that the court will uphold the lower court's decision. I think we will get a decision in a couple of months," he said. "But of course, I'm optimistic."
 
The Associated Press
Originally published October 10, 1997
 
Back