Polygamy: Illegal and Nondoctrinal?

[pam]

Were you required to be circumsized when you joined the church?

I don't understand the point of this question.

[Moksha]

Were you required to be circumsized when you joined the church?

Might explain why there are more Mormons than Jews in the world.

[Vanhin]

If D&C 132 has been superseded and is not doctrinal why hasn't it been removed from the D&C? The D&C has been added to and had things removed in the past (for example, the Lectures on Faith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

D&C 132 has not been superseded, only the doctrine of plural marriage, which is found in D&C 132 is superseded by OD1. Everything else in 132 is binding doctrine on members of the Church, and is mostly concerned with the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage.

This is in harmony with the rest of our scriptures that acknowledge that plural marriage can been authorized in mortality, by God, as he sees fit. Jacob in the Book of Mormon explains that monogamy is the rule, and polygamy is an exception that must be authorized.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

...

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:27,30)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

I don't understand the point of this question.

I understand what he means. If the standard works are binding doctrine on members of the Church, which they are, then we have to accept that some doctrines or practices are superseded by others, yet the old ones remain in the canon - like circumcision. The law of circumcision was done away in Christ. Mormon wrote his son Moroni about this:

Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. (Moroni 8:8)

Now the Lord requires us to circumcise our hearts, so the principle exists, but the practice is done away. (Rom. 2:25-29)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Elphaba]

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.

I was with you until the "regardless" part. What do you mean by "religious assurances . . . in the here and now"?

From that perspective, what we Mormons do is not polygamy.

What does it matter what the public's perspective is? The public doesn't define any Church practices or beliefs. I've heard that a gazillion times plus one during my lifetime, a few of them on this board.

The public isn't aware that men can be married/sealed to more than one women in the temple, albeit not while each is alive. But the fact is, they are, and that is polygamy in that Mormons believe the Celestial Kingdom is as real as the chair you are sitting in right now. When a man marries a second+ wife in the temple, they both know they will one day be together in the CK in polygamous circumstances. If you want to call it deferred polygamy, I'd be okay with that. But it is polygamy, nonetheless.

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.

I wrote my post in response to President Hinckley's statement that polygamy is non-doctrinal. It is doctrinal, and as I explained, it is still being practiced as defined by that doctrine.

I undertand why he said what he did, in that he wanted to separate the Church in the public's mind from the FLDS. I really don't see a perfect way to do that without a bit of dissembling.

Actually, it is the following statement that I object to:

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy.

This wasn't on King's show, but is a press release put out by the Church's News Department, and it is, categorically, not true.

When Elizabeth Smart was found, I commented on a Yahoo board in response to a young man who was a recent convert to the Church. That particular thread was about polygamy, and when I explained how men could be sealed to/marry more than one woman, albeit not while each was alive, he didn't believe me and kept quoting Pres. Hinckley's press release. I finally told him to ask his bishop about it. He was good enough to send me a message that acknowledged I was correcct, but that it didn't shake his testimony.

The point is, he had believed President Hinckley's categporical statement as would anyone else who noticed it but wasn't Mormon and didn't know anything about Mormonism, and it is, again, not "categorically" true.

Also, as a person passionate about the Church's history, while I understand why Pres. Hinckley publicly distanced the Church from polygamy, it actually makes me a little sad, because it means there is little emphasis on the pioneer Saints' lives who practiced it. I know you've studied this yourself, and know it was often a difficult life, though not always, but one entered into because of a fervent faith in God. So many members have no idea what these pioneer Saints sacrificed for the Church, and for their sake, I think that is a shame, albeit understandable.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

I was with you until the "regardless" part. What do you mean by "religious assurances . . . in the here and now"?

Again, I meant regarding the POV of King and his audience--even if we tell ourselves that a man sealed to both a dead and a living wife is/will be practicing polygamy; from King's POV, the man's still not practicing polygamy now and he never will be.

What does it matter what the public's perspective is? The public doesn't define any Church practices or beliefs. I've heard that a gazillion times plus one during my lifetime, a few of them on this board.

Well, in this context (as I believe someone already mentioned in this thread), Hinckley isn't being asked about polygamy as an abstract principle; he's being asked about the brand of polygamy currently in practice (against repeated instructions from Presidents Woodruff, Smith, Grant, etc) by certain breakaway groups.

Anyone who attempts to explain Mormon doctrine to outsiders is stuck in a sort of catch-22: We often get accused of hijacking common terms and making them mean something completely different within the sphere of our own doctrine; but if we try to engage non-Mormons using their own terminology we seem like we're refusing to own up to our own doctrine. It's a hard line to walk.

The public isn't aware that men can be married/sealed to more than one women in the temple, albeit not while each is alive. But the fact is, they are, and that is polygamy in that Mormons believe the Celestial Kingdom is as real as the chair you are sitting in right now. When a man marries a second+ wife in the temple, they both know they will one day be together in the CK in polygamous circumstances. If you want to call it deferred polygamy, I'd be okay with that. But it is polygamy, nonetheless.

Granted, but it's only polygamy if it actually happens. From King's point of view--it doesn't actually happen, ergo, no polygamy is currently practiced. The full nuances of the Church's current view of polygamy was beyond the scope of the interview. King certainly didn't seem interested in dwelling on it.

I wrote my post in response to President Hinckley's statement that polygamy is non-doctrinal. It is doctrinal, and as I explained, it is still being practiced as defined by that doctrine.

As an abstract concept, it is doctrinal; but I would submit that deliberately disobeying the instructions of Presidents Woodruff, Smith, Grant, and on down through the line is never "doctrinal".

Actually, it is the following statement that I object to: This wasn't on King's show, but is a press release put out by the Church's News Department, and it is, categorically, not true.

The press release was poorly done, as so much of the stuff that comes out of Newsroom is. If you look at the actual Conference Address the release quoted, President Hinckley prefaced his remarks on that subject with the following:

We are faced these days with many newspaper articles on this subject. This has arisen out of a case of alleged child abuse on the part of some of those practicing plural marriage.

As with the King interview, he is not repudiating polygamy as an abstract concept; just the modern practice thereof in contravention of the current teaching of the Church.

When Elizabeth Smart was found, I commented on a Yahoo board in response to a young man who was a recent convert to the Church. That particular thread was about polygamy, and when I explained how men could be sealed to/marry more than one woman, albeit not while each was alive, he didn't believe me and kept quoting Pres. Hinckley's press release. I finally told him to ask his bishop about it. He was good enough to send me a message that acknowledged I was correcct, but that it didn't shake his testimony.

The point is, he had believed President Hinckley's categorical statement as would anyone else who noticed it but wasn't Mormon and didn't know anything about Mormonism, and it is, again, not "categorically" true.

Recent converts are, I grant you, a ticklish issue, because there's a huge corpus of LDS literature to digest (even just the current, Church-correlated stuff) and--frankly--not all of it is of identical precedence. I would like to believe that, given a year or two in the Church, he would have understood the context of President Hinckley's remarks a bit better.

But from a non-member standpoint: Mormons don't practice polygamy. They might tell themselves that they're going to practice polygamy after death; but that's not polygamy.

Also, as a person passionate about the Church's history, while I understand why Pres. Hinckley publicly distanced the Church from polygamy, it actually makes me a little sad, because it means there is little emphasis on the pioneer Saints' lives who practiced it. I know you've studied this yourself, and know it was often a difficult life, though not always, but one entered into because of a fervent faith in God. So many members have no idea what these pioneer Saints sacrificed for the Church, and for their sake, I think that is a shame, albeit understandable.

I agree with you in that regard. Plus, if we were a bit more willing to talk about it, maybe we'd be seeing some more interesting and nuanced work about the dynamics of polygamous families, that would bury the "horny old men and naive little girls" stereotype once and for all.

That said: President Hinckley had to find a compromise that would honor our past without encouraging the continuation of practices that are now prohibited. And as the saying goes: a good compromise leaves everyone pi**ed.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

Nondoctrinal currently.

Nondoctrinal? I have to respectfully disagree with that. We are sealing more than one wife to one man in the Temple (work for the dead). Just because a doctrine is not presently practiced among the living, it doesn't make it nondoctrinal. As far as I know, Doctrine and Covenants 132 still part of Church doctrine. The Law of Consecration is part of Church doctrine even though we're asked to live the Law of Tithing.

[Suzie]

but was "ended" in the church after the First Presidency's manifesto on plural marriage by President Wilford Woodruff.

Actually, it took several years after the Manifesto. Many church leaders continued living in polygamy post-manifesto.

[Moksha]

The point is, he had believed President Hinckley's categporical statement as would anyone else who noticed it but wasn't Mormon and didn't know anything about Mormonism, and it is, again, not "categorically" true.

Elphaba

I am wondering if something on the books makes it categorically true. If polygamy though some extaordinary happening were to become legal, might not the LDS Church strike polygamy from the Doctrine and Covenants to distinguish itself from the FLDS?

[annamaureen]

If you want to understand why polygamy is needed for the plan of salvation to work, contemplate Sarah and her role :)

link

Could someone explain this in more detail? I'm reading about Sarah and for some reason I'm not grasping it. I'm having trouble seeing how it's relevant to the plan of salvation.

[Guest mysticmorini]

Nondoctrinal? I have to respectfully disagree with that. We are sealing more than one wife to one man in the Temple (work for the dead). Just because a doctrine is not presently practiced among the living, it doesn't make it nondoctrinal. As far as I know, Doctrine and Covenants 132 still part of Church doctrine. The Law of Consecration is part of Church doctrine even though we're asked to live the Law of Tithing.

of course you can also seal a woman to more than one man in the temple if all parties are deceased.

[dreiko]

Nondoctrinal? I have to respectfully disagree with that. We are sealing more than one wife to one man in the Temple (work for the dead). Just because a doctrine is not presently practiced among the living, it doesn't make it nondoctrinal. As far as I know, Doctrine and Covenants 132 still part of Church doctrine. The Law of Consecration is part of Church doctrine even though we're asked to live the Law of Tithing.

That's what I meant. So we agree. When I said nondoctrinal currently, I meant it is not in practice. Sorry, I should have made myself more clear.

[Elphaba]

of course you can also seal a woman to more than one man in the temple if all parties are deceased.

This is true, but it is with the understanding that when all of them have reached heaven, she will choose one of her husbands to be with for eternity. She is not allowed to live in a polygamous relationship with all of her husbands--she only gets one.

The marriages/sealings to her remaining husbands will beome void.

Elphaba

[annamaureen]

This is true, but it is with the understanding that when all of them have reached heaven, she will choose one of her husbands to be with for eternity. She is not allowed to live in a polygamous relationship with all of her husbands--she only gets one.

The marriages/sealings to her remaining husbands will beome void.

Obviously it's not my decision how these things will be, but this seems sad and unfair to me. My great-grandmother lost her first husband in WWII, and remarried after. She loved them both and has been sealed by proxy to both of them. It saddens me to think she'll be forced to choose between them. And what about the poor husband who gets kicked to the curb?

Edited February 4, 2010 by annamaureen

[Elphaba]

Obviously it's not my decision how these things will be, but this seems sad and unfair to me. My great-grandmother lost her first husband in WWII, and remarried after. She loved them both and has been sealed by proxy to both of them. It saddens me to think she'll be forced to choose between them. And what about the poor husband who gets kicked to the curb?

Your questions come up a lot when discussing a woman being married/sealed to all of her husbands once they've passed on, which is a fairly new practice.

I have not seen anything official, but I believe this new practice is to address situations where a couple were married/sealed in the temple, but the husband died shortly afterwards. The wife remarried, and lived happily with her second husband, and if given a choice, would choose him to spend eternity with.

Unfortunately, she wasnt able to make that choice. She was sealed to her first husband, and thus, he is the one she was bound to to spend eternity with.

I think the belief that God will sort it all out and everyone will be happy with their choices comes into play here.

But I do think the Church's new way of sealing women to all of her husbands really was an attempt to right a difficult situation.

I guess when you're talking about eternity, and the fact is, women will only have one husband to spend it with, there is no easy way to address these issues.

I'm no longer a member, so my information about the timing of this practice may be wrong. My mother is an avid geneaologist, and she told me about it.

Elphaba

[Guest mysticmorini]

This is true, but it is with the understanding that when all of them have reached heaven, she will choose one of her husbands to be with for eternity. She is not allowed to live in a polygamous relationship with all of her husbands--she only gets one.

The marriages/sealings to her remaining husbands will beome void.

Elphaba

then is there a chance that the men who lived polygamous lives or who were sealed to more than one wife (through divorce or death) after OD1 will have to choose one wife only to spend eternity with?

[Suzie]

then is there a chance that the men who lived polygamous lives or who were sealed to more than one wife (through divorce or death) after OD1 will have to choose one wife only to spend eternity with?

If they lived polygamous lives why would they have to choose one wife? I don't understand the reasoning.

[Guest mysticmorini]

If they lived polygamous lives why would they have to choose one wife? I don't understand the reasoning.

you need to read what i was responding to. we know that a woman may be sealed to more than one man but she must choose one for eternity. a man may be sealed to multiple women in this life, will he also have to choose one to spend eternity with.

[Elphaba]

then is there a chance that the men who lived polygamous lives or who were sealed to more than one wife (through divorce or death) after OD1 will have to choose one wife only to spend eternity with?

No. If they were married/sealed in the temple, these men will continue to be married/sealed to all of his wives for eternity.

This practice has never changed. As I said in an earlier post, a man can be married/sealed to a second+ wife today. His previous wife(ves) must have passed on, but once they are all in the CK, they will be a polygamous family.

Elphaba

[Guest mysticmorini]

No. If they were married/sealed in the temple, these men will continue to be married/sealed to all of his wives for eternity.

This practice has never changed. As I said in an earlier post, a man can be married/sealed to a second+ wife today. His previous wife(ves) must have passed on, but once they are all in the CK, they will be a polygamous family.

Elphaba

ok so if a woman was sealed in a temple to multiple men why would she have to choose who to spend eternity with? any reason besides that appears to be the earthly pattern (one many multiple wives and not vice versa) how do we know that it is not only an earthly pattern and that a man sealed to multiple woman in this life or in death won't have to choose one partner just as it as been stated that a woman sealed to more than one man in death will have to choose one?

[Elphaba]

ok so if a woman was sealed in a temple to multiple men why would she have to choose who to spend eternity with? any reason besides that appears to be the earthly pattern (one many multiple wives and not vice versa) how do we know that it is not only an earthly pattern and that a man sealed to multiple woman in this life or in death won't have to choose one partner just as it as been stated that a woman sealed to more than one man in death will have to choose one?

Because men are alllowed to have more than one wife in the Celestial Kingdom but women are not allowed to have more than one husband.

Let me clarify: A woman is not married/sealed in the temple to more than one man. She is married/sealed to all of her husbands, by proxy, after she and they have passed away.

A man, however, can be personally married/sealed to more than one woman in the temple, as long as all previous wives are deceased.

Edited to add: I just read on another thread that you were in charge of putting a trip to the temple together. This surprised me, because I had assumed you were a fairly new member since you didn't know what I was talking about.

The practice of men being married/sealed to more than one woman in the temple is as old as the sealing ordinances themselves. Surely you already knew this?

Elphaba

Edited February 5, 2010 by Elphaba

[deseretgov]

Historically women have been able to be sealed to more than one man on rare occasions. Section 132 permits the sealing of one woman to more than one husband.

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.

This verse states that if a man recieves a wife and if she is with another man then she has committed adultery. But it includes the phrase, "and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing."

So a women who a married to a man and is "with" another man has committed adultery. But if the other man has been appointed unto her by the holy anointing, then she has not committed adultery.

I don't know if this means that the other man is the one who is anointed or if it is the woman who is anointed.

Joseph Smith was sealed to a couple women who already had husbands.

[Elphaba]

Historically women have been able to be sealed to more than one man on rare occasions.

When?

Joseph Smith was sealed to a couple women who already had husbands.

However, these women were not already sealed to their husbands, so your scenario doesn't apply.

I'm not ignoring your explanation of the scriptural verse. I just don't agree with your interpretation, and as far as I know, a living woman has never been sealed to more than one husband.

Elphaba