Polygamy: Illegal and Nondoctrinal?


Moksha
 Share

Recommended Posts

When interviewed by Larry King, President Gordon Hinckley gave a very definitive answer to this question on polygamy:

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

- Larry King Live, Gordon Hinckley: Distinguished Religious Leader of the Mormons Aired September 8, 1998 - 9:00 p.m. ET

The Proclamation of the Family say man and woman, testimony to Congress says man and woman, the National Organization for the Family says man and woman. None of these say man and women.

Your thoughts (especially about it being nondoctrinal)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often hear how the New and Everlasting Covenant is polygamy, because it says that those who don't enter into the practice will not be saved. But here's the catch. It was a commandment only to those who were given the commandment. There were many men who were not called to polygamy, and they had no such requirement. If you were called to take additional wives, you were obligated to follow it, or be damned.

So, now we are commanded to be monogamous, and if we enter into plural marriage, we are excommunicated. It is not OUR doctrine and we are not bound by the commandments given to our forefathers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is doctrine found in D&C 132 that is superseded by Official Declaration 1. That is why it is not currently "doctrinal".

In other words, we do not apologize for plural marriages that were authorized back in ye olden days, but we no longer practice it because it is no longer authorized.

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the context from the interview was in response to FLDS polygamy being in the news and trying to establish that them folks getting themselves polygamous marriages are not LDS in good standing (if they are LDS at all it's because the court hasn't been held yet).

Also, this my be worth perusing for anyone confused on the subject: Polygamy (Plural Marriage)

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that Plural Marriage of living people is not doctrinal right now. Bute Plural Marriage of the dead is doctrinal.

Section 132 about the New and Everlasting Covenant pertains to three types of marriages, monogamy, polygyny, and polyandry. We are only living part of the New and Everlasting Covenant. One of the biggest problems is that we don't have any good examples of what Plural Marriage is. All the public sees is the FLDS and stories of incest and child abuse. But don't think that legalization of Plural Marriage should try to ride the coat tails of homosexual marriage. Plural Marriage is a divine (if only occasionally permitted)covenant and a higher law. While Homosexual marriage has never been commanded nor permitted by God. It is a sin. It would be like associating the Word of Wisdom with binge drinking.

Monogamy:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:19

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Polygyny:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:61

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

Polyandry:

This is something I just noticed recently. And Joseph Smith marryng other men's wives now made a bit more sense.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:41

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

I don't know if that means that the woman is the one annointed or if the other man is the one annointed.

Another thing Inoticed reading Section 132 is that it often commands not to shed innocent blood. I wondered why it would mention that commandment and not the others of the ten commandments. I was reading this in the temple(not that it makes my interpretation any more authoritative) but it sort of hit me. How does shedding innocent blood relate to a marriage covenant. Then I realized maybe this commandment not to shed innocent blood in the New and Everlation Covenant is referring to abortion.

I started a forum for the discussion of Plural Marriage if anyone is interested I can post a link.

Edited by deseretgov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Proclamation of the Family say man and woman, testimony to Congress says man and woman, the National Organization for the Family says man and woman. None of these say man and women.

Something I missed the first time. Plural Marriage isn't a marriage of a man and women. The women are not married to each other. That would be homosexual marriage and group marriage. It is one man and one woman. But the man may have more than one one man and one woman marriage. So dispite what the show Big Love says, Plural Marriage is just that plural marriage. Each woman has her own marriage covenant with the one man. It's not one large marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, as we see in 60 Minutes, President Hinckley stated that we as members of the church do not drink any caffeinated beverages. I think that a case study will prove that we do. In other words, such interviews are purely opinion.

Anyway, I am sure that the reason he didn't expound more on his polygamy statement is because I am sure that neither Larry King nor the audience are at a spiritual readiness to hear that yes, polygamy was once a commandment and therefore is doctrinal under that circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church still practices polygamy, as defined by its doctrine. every time a man is married/sealed to a second wife in the temple. This means he will have multiple wives for eternity, and that is polygamy.

He can do this while still alive on the earth, but only if his former wife deceased. If his second wife dies, he can then be married/sealed to a third wife. So, in this case, he would spend eternity with three wives and that is polygamy.

Additionally, a very long time ago I had a friend who was civilly divorced but the temple marriage/sealing was not severed. Her husband wanted to be married/sealed to another woman in the temple, and my friend had to give her permission for him to do this, which she gave. Thus, he was now married/sealed to two women for eternity, but not civilly while on earth.

Again, this was a very long time ago, and it is my sense this is no longer allowed, in that the first marriage's temple marriage/sealing must first be severed, but I admit I don't know for sure. You guys would know better than I.

But it is dissembling to say the Church no longer practices polygamy whatsoever, which is what President Hinckley said. It practices it, as defined by its doctrine, everytime a man is married/sealed to a second+ wife in the temple. This is polygamy, and the "whatsoever" is wrong.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as those definitions of polygamy go, Elphaba is correct. Though I can't offer a definitive answer on the church's decisions concerning the divorced individuals.

For the purposes of living, practiced polygamy, doctrinally nothing has changed. Men were sometimes called to engage in polygamy. This is still a valid concept in that they still could be. However because it is against the law (aka worldy leaders preventing the potential will of God) it is not commanded to anyone. The practice has changed, but not the doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What mean this?

How can be not doctrine now, but was doctrine before?

Simply put:

1. You can only engage in polygamy when the Lord tells you to (Jacob 2:23-30).

2. The Lord (though Official Declaration 1) has issued a rather loud, "I'm not telling you to."

3. Since nobody is being command of the Lord to practice polygamy, and only in those circumstances is it doctrinal, then all polygamous marriage this days are non-doctrinal (i.e. against doctrine).

For those wanting to read into President Hinckley's statement, keep in mind he was being asked about current polygamous marriages. Are those doctrinal? Of course not, they're also illegal as he pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church still practices polygamy, as defined by its doctrine. every time a man is married/sealed to a second wife in the temple. This means he will have multiple wives for eternity, and that is polygamy.

I think it's worth pointing out, though, that King and probably a majority of his audience most likely believe that marriage ends at death, regardless of any religious assurances we might offer ourselves in the here-and-now. From that perspective, what we Mormons do is not polygamy. And, FWIW, the context of the discussion seems to focus on civil law, which don't usually purport to govern the actions of the non-living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, a very long time ago I had a friend who was civilly divorced but the temple marriage/sealing was not severed. Her husband wanted to be married/sealed to another woman in the temple, and my friend had to give her permission for him to do this, which she gave. Thus, he was now married/sealed to two women for eternity, but not civilly while on earth.

Elphaba

not to derail the thread, just wanted to point out.... if a marriage is destroyed by divorce here there is no eternal sealing potential for it. the "permission" that is asked for is more to find out if there was any sin or misdeed contributing to the divorce that had not been addressed previously and that there was no desire on her part to restore the marriage. even the laws of the land account for the second, a lot of places a person can not remarry after a divorce for 1 yr (except to each other). being a divorcee and being a widower are not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What mean this?

How can be not doctrine now, but was doctrine before?

It was actually a loose reference to the fact that the practice of plural marriage (practice of polygamy) occurred prior to aprox. 1891, but was "ended" in the church after the First Presidency's manifesto on plural marriage by President Wilford Woodruff.

But the law of plural marriage has always remained doctrine, hence D&C 132. So by that reasoning, "polygamy is not current doctrine" or in other words, doctrine that is in current usage.

A similar example would be for the Law of Consecration... (except in the case of the Law of Consecration, we are given to make a covenant in the temple concerning it..).. but the Church as a whole is not commanded to live it because we have taken upon us its lesser law counterpart, which is the Law of Tithing.

The Law of plural marriage used to reside in the Law of Chastity, or in other words, the Law of Chastity used to carry a component of the law of plural marriage, but once Prophet Woodruff's manifesto came, that element was removed from the temple ordinance.

According to Joseph Smith, both the Law of Plural Marriage and Law of Consecration are laws of the Celestial Kingdom, or in other words are higher laws. They are doctrine, but not currently enforced or utilized doctrine.

The Law of Moses is the another example of this, but from a lesser law standpoint.... Say, for instance the blood atonement portion of the Law of Moses, (the portion of animal sacrifice): It is still doctrine, but not currently in use, because we have the higher law... the Law of Sacrifice which is part of the Law of Christ.

Edited by dreiko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is doctrine found in D&C 132 that is superseded by Official Declaration 1. That is why it is not currently "doctrinal".

If D&C 132 has been superseded and is not doctrinal why hasn't it been removed from the D&C? The D&C has been added to and had things removed in the past (for example, the Lectures on Faith were part of the D&C and removed in 1921).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just means that it is doctrine that is currently not in use.

The doctrine in 132 still stands... it's just that we are in a time that the official declaration is in use.

Just like the law of consecration, instead we are living the law of tithing currently (D&C 119:4-5). Does the law of tithing negate the law of consecration? No, just that the mandate of the Church is for the law of tithing, not upon the Law of Consecration.

The mandate of the Church currently is not to practice the Law of Plural Marriage, but does that mean that the doctrine of that law plural marriage is nullified? No. Just not currently adhered to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If D&C 132 has been superseded and is not doctrinal why hasn't it been removed from the D&C? The D&C has been added to and had things removed in the past (for example, the Lectures on Faith were part of the D&C and removed in 1921).

If you read OD1 you will see it was not stopped because, it's time had passed,or it was replaced, but to protect the church.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

Wilford Woodruff

Goes on to explain how he had a vision showing him what would happen if he didn't stop it and how it would effect temple work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If D&C 132 has been superseded and is not doctrinal why hasn't it been removed from the D&C? The D&C has been added to and had things removed in the past (for example, the Lectures on Faith were part of the D&C and removed in 1921).

I guess we should throw out most of the Old Testament as well. Just because doctrines are "superseded" doesn't mean we throw out scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find it interesting when I hear or read the term "The New and Everlasting Covenant" and how people readily assume that term means polygamy.

The term applies to the fulness of the gospel. It applies to each of the covenants we make whether it be baptism, participating in the taking of the sacrament, in the temple and other covenants we make. Each of those is "new" and has everlasting or eternal rewards.

In a talk by D. Todd Christofferson he states:

The scriptures speak of the new and everlasting covenant. The new and everlasting covenant is the gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, the doctrines and commandments of the gospel constitute the substance of an everlasting covenant between God and man that is newly restored in each dispensation. If we were to state the new and everlasting covenant in one sentence it would be this: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Edited by pam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share