Inactive member in polygamous relationship

[fate]

I am an inactive member of the church and have been considering coming back to the church, but I have the following dilemma.

In short I'm in a polygamous relationship, but not quite by definition. The background is such: I'm married with three children and my wife had her tubes tied after the third. It was a decision by both of us to stop at three, not that we didn't want more but that we (mostly I) didn't want to overburden my wife and we felt that three had fulfilled our commandment to multiply and replenish. At this time we were active members in the church. Over the next few years we slowly became inactive. I had joined the Army and was pretty much wiped out by the weekend. I know that's no excuse.

Now to the more recent: I became close to a girl at an evening job I had and we began to develop feelings for each other. Because of my 100% honest relationship with my wife, I immediately told her my feelings. We fought for a bit, but in the end she decided she wanted me to be happy and she became good friends with this girl and eventually, essentially, gave her to me as a "gift."

Before long I had a child with this girl, so now I have one child with this girl and three with my wife. I love them both and they both love me, and they both enjoy being around each other so there is no tension in our family. We all live together and we're happy.

Now I've decided I want to go back to church, especially because I feel it's important for my children to be raised in the church, but here comes into play the dilemma. Although I technically haven't been excommunicated from the church because I just stopped going, I'm sure that I would be. However, I believe 100% in the church and because of my own selfish reasons I've fallen away, but now I am in a situation where I want to go back but I don't think I'd be welcomed back. I can't just leave the second girl, that's not right, especially when we all love each other and we're in a healthy relationship. She's not like drugs or alcohol, that can be left with only one party making a sacrifice, she's a person with feelings and leaving her is not an option.

I know the church hasn't performed a polygamous marriage since the end of the 1800s because of the law, but I also know that the church continues to perform sealings to other women, such as in the case of a death or separation.

I guess my main question is: would the church force me to leave my 2nd love if I wanted to come back? Although I wasn't "called" to be in this relationship like they were in the early history of the church, I am in this relationship nonetheless. I want to be with both of these women forever, and they with me. Would it be possible to be sealed to the second girl without being in a legal marriage? I know it's bending the rules ...

Please don't criticize me, I've done that plenty to myself. I'm looking for advice. Thanks.

[pam]

The Church doesn't recognize polygamy at this day and time. Those actively engaged in it are excommunicated.

[MarginOfError]

The church would do nothing about your relationship with regards to polygamy. However, if you continue to have sexual relations outside of your marriage, you will likely face disciplinary action for adultery. If you wish to come back into full activity in the church, that will need to be resolved with your local priesthood leaders. Your bishop would be a good place to start.

[fate]

I'd just like to bring up adultery. First off, the definition of adultery differs from state to state (and country to country). Some regard it as ANY sex to someone other than you legally married spouse, others regard it as sexual relations with another without permission of the legally married spouse.

As far as the church goes, D&C has the following:

D&C 42:75. But if ye shall find that any persons have left their companions for the sake of adultery, and they themselves are the offenders, and their companions are living, they shall be case out from among you.

I'd like to point out in this, that I have not "left" my companion, we are still very happily together.

D&C 132:41. 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 only is applying to the woman being with another man (I only bring this verse up because someone tried to use it against me in the past).

D&C 132:43. And if he husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

This verse is specifically pointing out a vow to not be with another woman ever, and never have I been under such a vow.

And now the most important: D&C 132:61. 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.

Although I have not "legally" married the second, in only a few definitions of marriage does it require the contract to be legal. I know nobody likes Wikipedia, but the beginning of the entry states "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony." There is nothing wrong or illegal with marrying a woman outside of law. This is one of the many reasons why the Utah Attorney General has said they will never go after polygamists simply for their life-style (not to mention he's brought up the sheer number of them and how it'd be nearly impossible to stop the practice).

[Guest saintish]

I'll second MOE, you would likely face discipline for adultery even if your wife consented to it. I am 100% sure that the church would not seal you to this woman as long as you are sealed to your wife, I am 95% sure the church wouldn't seal you to this woman if you weren't married or sealed to your wife. Unless it has changed in the new CHI, being sealed to someone you committed an adulterous relationship with requires 1st presidency approval and they certainly won’t approve it if you have any kind of relationship with your current wife.

You are going to have to lay everything out on the table and figure out what is really important to you. Polygamy and the church simply aren't compatible in this day and age.

[rameumptom]

You will have to decide between Church membership/activity and having two relationships. What I suggest is that you change the second relationship into a friendship, without a sexual or intimate component. You are, after all, responsible for the child in that relationship.

It will require you making some major sacrifices. As it is, you are limiting yourself, both women, and all children spiritually by your current actions. You are sacrificing their eternal blessings for a temporary feeling of pleasure.

Time to stop being selfish and do what is right.

[Guest saintish]

D&C 132:43. And if he husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

This verse is specifically pointing out a vow to not be with another woman ever, and never have I been under such a vow.

What about your temple covenants regarding only those to who you are lawfully married? or even civil marrige vows mention fedelity. I don't think anyone in the church is going to look at your situation and say you haven't commited adultery. I think you are trying to justify your situation to fit your needs.

[skippy740]

fate,

The key word in 'rationalize' is lies. Even Satan knows and can use the scriptures to twist their meanings. Be careful going down that road.

2 Nephi 15:20-21

20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

21 Wo unto the wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!

[fate]

You're all right, I doubt anyone would ever see things the way I see things, that's why I stopped going to church. I analyze scripture and base my life off core doctrine, not hasty interpretations. Sure I made a mistake, so I'm not perfect, but in analyzing core doctrine the only real fault here is not being "legally" married to her.

As for "temporary feeling of pleasure" and "being selfish" ... sure the original mistake was a temporary feeling of pleasure, but not it's grown into more than that. I wouldn't want to be with both women "forever" if it was temporary feelings. As for the "pleasure" part -- I find it funny that whenever anyone mentions more than one wife, one of the first things that come up is pleasure aka sex. Sure sex is involved in a marriage, but if you think marriage is about sex then you're way off base and shouldn't be giving me any advice in the first place. And YES, I'm being selfish -- that's what ETERNAL HAPPINESS is about, being selfish! Why would I want eternal happiness if not for myself? Jesus sacrificed His mortal body for us, but do you think for an instant He would have sacrificed His Eternal Glory (knowing full well what that actually meant)?

And yes, there was a violation of my temple covenant, in which "We are instructed to give unto you the law of Chastity, which is that you shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded." The "legally and lawfully" is violated, although taking her as a wife outside of a legal contract is not "illegal" either, but I cannot argue that I violated this covenant.

Finally, my state has no repercussions for sex outside of marriage. I know some do, but mine does not.

[skippy740]

The laws of the land are not justification for violating the laws and covenants of God.

The "core doctrine" of the church states that the words of the Living Prophet are more important than a dead prophet.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent virtuous and in doing good to all men.

It's not about "how you see it". It's about how the Lord has revealed His will for us to follow through modern revelation to Living Prophets.

Edited June 27, 2011 by skippy740

[MarginOfError]

What about your temple covenants regarding only those to who you are lawfully married? or even civil marrige vows mention fedelity. I don't think anyone in the church is going to look at your situation and say you haven't commited adultery. I think you are trying to justify your situation to fit your needs.

We haven't established if he has made covenants in the temple, so he may be unaware of the definition given during the endowment--that men and women should have no sexual relations except to whom they are legally and lawfully married.

Fate, that is the standard of adultery that you will be compared to. If all you say is completely accurate, then the Church will consider you to be maintaining an adulterous relationship.

[fate]

The laws of the land are not justification for violating the laws and covenants of God.

The "core doctrine" of the church states that the words of the Living Prophet are more important than a dead prophet.

Where is this? And where is anything by a living prophet that says I'm wrong?

[fate]

Please don't think I'm trying to argue or being naive...I'm seriously troubled by this.

[Vort]

We fought for a bit, but in the end she decided she wanted me to be happy and she became good friends with this girl and eventually, essentially, gave her to me as a "gift."

Your girlfriend/adulterous lover is not a thing to be given as a "gift". Your wife has no authority to give any such "gift".

She's not like drugs or alcohol, that can be left with only one party making a sacrifice, she's a person with feelings and leaving her is not an option.

Then you are not sufficiently interested in going back to Church.

Leaving your adulterous relationship does not mean you leave the mother of your child without support. You continue supporting her and her child for the rest of their lives. Just quit having sex with her.

I guess my main question is: would the church force me to leave my 2nd love if I wanted to come back?

Of course.

To be clear, the Church would not "force" you to do anything. But you would not be accepted into full fellowship while living in the sinful relationship you are currently in. Indeed, you would almost certainly be excommunicated. You should not be living under the baptismal and solemn temple covenants you have made while engaging in such a lifestyle.

I want to be with both of these women forever, and they with me. Would it be possible to be sealed to the second girl without being in a legal marriage?

You are so greatly far from being with these women forever that your question doesn't even make good sense. You will be sealed neither to them nor to anyone else if you remain on your present course.

God offers us ordinances for salvation. We accept those ordinances on his terms, not on ours. You must humble yourself, beg forgiveness from God, and conform your life to his will in all things. Living in an adulterous relationship is not conforming to God's will. There is exactly zero chance that God will decide to waive his law of chastity for your special case.

I know it's bending the rules ...

God's "rules" are not merely flexible guidelines, to be modified or ignored at will. The question is: Do you want to be with God? Remember, you will have neither your wife nor your adulterous lover in the eternities if you continue to pursue your present course.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Vort

[skippy740]

Articles of Faith 9:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Read October, 2010 General Conference talks. There were 2 speakers who spoke about the 14 fundamentals in Following the Prophet.

[fate]

God's "rules" are not merely flexible guidelines, to be modified or ignored at will. The question is: Do you want to be with God? Remember, you will have neither your wife nor your adulterous lover in the eternities if you continue to pursue your present course.

That IS a good question -- but the REAL question is, what does it MEAN to be with God?? We don't know. Joseph Smith said that the Telestial Glory was so great a man would kill himself just to get there! So what exactly does it mean to be with God? We have no idea -- what am I really striving for?

Articles of Faith 9:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

You're absolutely right, which means we FULLY believe in polygamy, just don't practice it because of the laws of the land. So ... new question:

If I am legally married under the laws of another country, would the church then allow me my desires?

EDIT: Because there are a few states that still frown on it, but allow polygamous marriages under foreign law.

[skippy740]

Where is this? And where is anything by a living prophet that says I'm wrong?

Official Declaration 1 comes to mind.

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual Lesson 31: “Sealed … for Time and for All Eternityâ€

What Are People Asking about Us? - Ensign Nov. 1998

Question 4: What is the Church’s position on polygamy?

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.

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.

[Guest saintish]

Where is this? And where is anything by a living prophet that says I'm wrong?

they havent said a lot about it recently because they thought OD 1 took care of any confusion about the issue, I know GBH said that we no longer practice it and if any are found they are excommunicated.

[Suzie]

Fate:

And now the most important: D&C 132:61. 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. .

Hi Fete, we need to read and analyze scripture in its proper context. In verse 37 of D&C 132 the Lord is talking about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob receiving concubines, and it was accounted unto them for righteousness because they were given unto them by Him. The following verses also applies to Plural Marriage when APPROVED by the Lord. In your case you stated that:

Although I wasn't "called" to be in this relationship like they were in the early history of the church, I am in this relationship nonetheless.

[Vort]

Joseph Smith said that the Telestial Glory was so great a man would kill himself just to get there!

Baloney.

[Guest saintish]

I actually heard that quote this past sunday

[fate]

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.

From OD1 -- "contracting" implies a contract, which I don't have. Again, this brings up a legal contract performed under the laws of another country. Also "forbidden by the law of the land" ... which again brings up a contract performed in another country?

What of those in other countries where polygamy IS legal and the church exists? Are they even allowed to fulfill the commandments given in D&C?

[skippy740]

Please read my post.

[fate]

Baloney.

Please don't give me any further advice -- you clearly don't know what you're talking about and you're just going to frustrate me further.

I'm on these forums because I'm looking for a reasonable solution. Please keep it a reasonable argument.

[Guest saintish]

From OD1 -- "contracting" implies a contract, which I don't have. Again, this brings up a legal contract performed under the laws of another country. Also "forbidden by the law of the land" ... which again brings up a contract performed in another country?

What of those in other countries where polygamy IS legal and the church exists? Are they even allowed to fulfill the commandments given in D&C?

Um not because wthout a "contract" its still adultery. as for other countries, the current revelation and guidance from G_d is that we DONT practice polygamy.