Polygamy question

[Bhodi]

(This does raise questions about sex, but it is purely academic in nature, so please respond accordingly. The basis is a discussion with a rabbi friend regarding morality and polygamy.)

Looking for views on a dilemma some friends and I came up with.

A man is married, and sealed. Married per government, sealed per Church.

Man is divorced per government, but the sealing remains.

Man is remarried per government, while still sealed to the first woman.

What is the morality here regarding sexual relationships. Is a sexual relationship between all couples considered moral per Church standards? Can't he man be involved with both women? Is this polygamous?

Not really sure how the Church would handle this, but I cannot imagine it would be acceptable, but I cannot see a theological problem.

[NeuroTypical]

What is the morality here regarding sexual relationships.

You only have sex within the bonds of marriage. You do not have sex with your divorced spouse.

Is a sexual relationship between all couples considered moral per Church standards?

Of course not.

.

Can't he man be involved with both women?

Of course not.

.

Is this polygamous?

Of course it would be.

.

Not really sure how the Church would handle this

Well, be sure. Sexual relationships are between husband and wife, legally married. There is no other arrangement.

.

I cannot see a theological problem.

Here you go. Edited November 25, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Connie]

Hi Bhodi. Welcome to the site.

I see a huge theological problem with your little dilemma, and here's why i think so: A marriage has to be legal in order for it to be lawful (in accordance with God’s law). A man who has divorced a woman is no longer legally married to her and, therefore, it is not lawful for them to be involved as a couple regardless of whether their sealing has been officially broken or not. If he continued to be involved with her while legally married to someone else, it would be considered adultery, not polygamy.

Regards.

[Vort]

(This does raise questions about sex, but it is purely academic in nature, so please respond accordingly. The basis is a discussion with a rabbi friend regarding morality and polygamy.)

Looking for views on a dilemma some friends and I came up with.

A man is married, and sealed. Married per government, sealed per Church.

Man is divorced per government, but the sealing remains.

Man is remarried per government, while still sealed to the first woman.

What is the morality here regarding sexual relationships. Is a sexual relationship between all couples considered moral per Church standards? Can't he man be involved with both women? Is this polygamous?

Not really sure how the Church would handle this, but I cannot imagine it would be acceptable, but I cannot see a theological problem.

The above two answers outline the theological problem. Those who are divorced are not married, sealings notwithstanding. Having sex with someone you are not married to is adultery, even (especially!) if you are sealed.

[Bhodi]

I think the answers above are wrong. At what point did the Law of God take second fiddle to any secular government? Why do we use government to determine morality, anyway? If gay marriage is legal per the government, does this make it moral?

Consider the Catholics, they don't care who, what, where, when, why, or how you were married, you still have to have it solemnized per Catholic theology for it to be spiritually valid. I am not sure how they consider divorce, but I think they too have an issue with secular divorce.

So if someone is sealed (married) per the Church, why does a government need to pass any sort of judgment on the union at all? Theologically, it does not. If I live on a desert island, but one that has a temple, I could still get married, even if there is no secular government to recognize the union. If I then move to California, I am still married, even if I never get the union recognized by the government. All of the governments of the world can and will crumble into nothing and the marriage is still completely valid and theologically correct.

And this has not changed. A man can be sealed to multiple women, let’s say three, who are all still alive, and he can divorce all three, but the sealings are still theologically valid. I know plenty of people who have gotten divorces but who chose to not have their sealing cancelled, under the premise that they will be able to work things out in the hereafter. I do not necessarily agree with this, they are still going o have the same general problems post-resurrection, they are not going to suddenly gain more patience, but this is their decision. We still recognize the sealing, regardless of the governmental recognition.

Even per the Official declaration, we are acceding to the secular law, and not concerning ourselves with divine law. We are simply abiding by the laws of the land, polygamy is still a theological principle, but in the theoretical example I provided, the laws of the land are being upheld. We do not abandon theology simply because the US Congress says yea or nay.

It seems that sex is the major hangup here. The issue would be sexual relationships.

Per Jewish law, for example, the government does not have as much sway, though there is room, and this was the point of the discussion.

[pam]

Actually both of the answers you received are correct. Once you are divorced that marriage is broken on earth no matter that you are sealed.

I have a feeling that your mind was already made up on this issue so any answer you get contrary to what you already personally believe will make no difference.

Edited November 25, 2012 by pam

[Bhodi]

Actually both of the answers you received are correct. Once you are divorced that marriage is broken no matter that you are sealed.

Actually, none of it is correct, at least doctrinally. For some reason there is a tendency, particularly amongst American Mormons, to ascribe more authority to the government than we theologically give it. Nevertheless, where in any of our doctrine does the US government have theological authority? Just because a judge nullifies a legal contract, this has no ecclesiastical authority.

A friend of mine is a Rabbi, and we were discussing Janeane Garofalo’s surprise that she had been married for 20 years, without knowing it. My friend raised issues about the marriage because of her consent, or lack thereof, and intention per Jewish law. Did she and he intend to actually get married, did they actually consent to the union, etc…

Consider the opposite. Let’s say you are married, and sealed, with children. Let’s also say that the government paperwork was misfiled. The person who drew it up was not authorized to do so, or something else. For whatever reason there is a problem with the government paperwork, and it is an invalid marriage per government standards. The sealing was valid per Church standards.

Are you still married? Are your kids now illegitimate? Have you been living in sin for over a decade or so? Do you have to lose your temple recommend now because you have been with a live-in boyfriend instead of a husband? Will your Bishop tell you that you cannot have marital relations until the paperwork is cleared up?

Of course not.

When Adam and Eve were married, there was no secular government to approve of the union, but they were married regardless. When Nephi was married in the wilderness, he did not go back to Jerusalem to make sure the proper legal paperwork was filed with the local governmental authorities.

If you are sealed, and then divorced, you are only divorced per governmental authority, not per Church theology. Why do people presume, despite no doctrinal support, that the government must approve of something before it is theologically correct?

I have a feeling that your mind was already made up on this issue so any answer you got contrary to what you already personally believe will make no difference.

No, but with some things, the theology is clear. A sealing is valid until it is canceled, which requires First Presidency approval, regardless of what the government thinks. This is not really debatable, it is doctrine and fact. The question becomes what to do with this fact, and how to deal with the conflicting roles of government and God. There seems to be a theological loophole allowing polygamy when a man is sealed to one woman, and married to another, not because there is a problem with our theology, but because there is a loophole in that we consider governmental marriage to be morally powerful.

[pam]

No, but with some things, the theology is clear. A sealing is valid until it is canceled, which requires First Presidency approval, regardless of what the government thinks. This is not really debatable, it is doctrine and fact. The question becomes what to do with this fact, and how to deal with the conflicting roles of government and God. There seems to be a theological loophole allowing polygamy when a man is sealed to one woman, and married to another, not because there is a problem with our theology, but because there is a loophole in that we consider governmental marriage to be morally powerful.

You are correct. A sealing is valid until it is canceled. However, a marriage can be ended through divorce done by the proper legal channels. It doesn't mean a sealing is then null and void. What we are talking about is apples and oranges.

[Connie]

Hello again, Bhodi. Hope you are doing well.

As far as the LDS people are concerned, it is doctrinally correct. “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.”

In these last days, God has asked that our marriages be legal in order to be lawful. Whenever modern prophets speak of marriage, legality is always implied. This makes things a little different in other countries as governments are not all the same.

A sealing only remains valid if the people involved are true to their covenant. The sealing does not have to be cancelled by the First Presidency in order for it to be invalid.

Regards.

[Bhodi]

You are correct. A sealing is valid until it is canceled. However, a marriage can be ended through divorce done by the proper legal channels. It doesn't mean a sealing is then null and void. What we are talking about is apples and oranges.

A governmental marriage must be ended through proper legal channels. Someone divorced on Earth is still sealed in the hereafter, however. Marriage existed long before the United States of America, and will exist after the USA becomes subsumed by Mexico.

Given the scenario above, if your legal marriage is found to be technically invalid, when you die are you suddenly guilty of fornication because you were never really married?

So if your legal marriage is ended, why do you think it has theological implications?

As far as the LDS people are concerned, it is doctrinally correct. “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.”

This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that legislation has theological authority. This means we should obey the speed limit, not that 65 mph is suddenly a moral speed to go. Bacon cheese burgers are legal, but as explained by my Jewish friend, the fact that they are legal per the US government does not make them kosher per Rabbinic Law. According to your line of thought, gay marriage is suddenly moral because some states made it legal.

In these last days, God has asked that our marriages be legal in order to be lawful. Whenever modern prophets speak of marriage, legality is always implied. This makes things a little different in other countries as governments are not all the same.

So I ask again per my scenario above.

Let’s say you are married, and sealed, with children. Let’s also say that the government paperwork was misfiled. The person who drew it up was not authorized to do so, or something else. For whatever reason there is a problem with the government paperwork, and it is an invalid marriage per government standards. The sealing was valid per Church standards.

Are you still married? Are your kids now illegitimate? Have you been living in sin for over a decade or so? Do you have to lose your temple recommend now because you have been with a live-in boyfriend instead of a husband? Will your Bishop tell you that you cannot have marital relations until the paperwork is cleared up?

A sealing only remains valid if the people involved are true to their covenant. The sealing does not have to be cancelled by the First Presidency in order for it to be invalid.

Not true IAW CHI, Book 1, Section 8.

[NightSG]

Let’s say you are married, and sealed, with children. Let’s also say that the government paperwork was misfiled. The person who drew it up was not authorized to do so, or something else. For whatever reason there is a problem with the government paperwork, and it is an invalid marriage per government standards. The sealing was valid per Church standards.

Not sure about states that don't have common law marriage provisions, but here, agreeing to be married, living together within the state and presenting yourselves as husband and wife is enough to qualify as a common law marriage. The scenario presented above would definitely qualify, and for all normal purposes, a common law marriage is as valid as a state sanctioned marriage, with the date of marriage being the first time you satisfied all three points of the common law marriage. (If you went on an out-of-state honeymoon, for example, the date might be when you returned and began actually living together in the state.) Thus, the couple would still be married, and the paperwork issues would simply be to recognize that it was actually a regular marriage from the start.

The only time I could see it being an issue for a Texas couple would be if they were out of state, since the lack of documentation makes it likely that other states would refuse to recognize the common law marriage unless they have similar laws.

[Bhodi]

Not sure about states that don't have common law marriage provisions, but here, agreeing to be married, living together within the state and presenting yourselves as husband and wife is enough to qualify as a common law marriage. The scenario presented above would definitely qualify, and for all normal purposes, a common law marriage is as valid as a state sanctioned marriage, with the date of marriage being the first time you satisfied all three points of the common law marriage. (If you went on an out-of-state honeymoon, for example, the date might be when you returned and began actually living together in the state.) Thus, the couple would still be married, and the paperwork issues would simply be to recognize that it was actually a regular marriage from the start.

The only time I could see it being an issue for a Texas couple would be if they were out of state, since the lack of documentation makes it likely that other states would refuse to recognize the common law marriage unless they have similar laws.

That is a fascinating issue I had not considered, because I do not think the Church accepts common law marriages.

[Guest]

My BIL's first wife left him and he later remarried. They never had their sealing cancelled. I can say with reasonable certainty that if he went and slept with his ex-wife, he'd be facing some serious church discipline.

[Bhodi]

My BIL's first wife left him and he later remarried. They never had their sealing cancelled. I can say with reasonable certainty that if he went and slept with his ex-wife, he'd be facing some serious church discipline.

I agree, there would probably be action, but I do not think it would be theologically or doctrinally valid, since they are still married in the eyes of the Church. It is a loophole, in part caused because we recognize the government as authoritative, for some reason.

[NightSG]

That is a fascinating issue I had not considered, because I do not think the Church accepts common law marriages.

I would expect it to depend on the circumstances. For example, converts, in an existing common law marriage, might be recognized, but I would expect it to be strongly discouraged among existing members.

One of the problems is that you can't get a marriage license if you're already married. I don't know if there's an exception for making it official with an existing common law spouse, but if not, then the couple would basically have to get divorced, get the license and then remarry. I can't see the Church encouraging divorce just to satisfy paperwork requirements.

[Bhodi]

I would expect it to depend on the circumstances. For example, converts, in an existing common law marriage, might be recognized, but I would expect it to be strongly discouraged among existing members.

One of the problems is that you can't get a marriage license if you're already married. I don't know if there's an exception for making it official with an existing common law spouse, but if not, then the couple would basically have to get divorced, get the license and then remarry. I can't see the Church encouraging divorce just to satisfy paperwork requirements.

But this all involves the issue of government recognition. Going back to something I said previously, Catholics do not recognize anything other than Catholic marriage. If you want to become Catholic and you are married, you still have to have your marriage solmenized. There is some utility in that, it prevents confusion.

Why does anyone care at all if the government recognizes the marriage? Why would that matter?

[Guest]

I guess you could take it up with the leadership. Let us know how that goes.

[Bhodi]

I guess you could take it up with the leadership. Let us know how that goes.

That's passing the buck. I suspect why it happened, we had to recognize something, so the government contract is easier to deal with, but in reality it has opened a whole can of worms.

Theologically the government piece of paper is just that, a piece of paper.

[Guest]

But one of our Articles of Faith, as pointed out, states that we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

According to Church policy, they prefer that we be married and sealed in the Temple. Not to be civilly married first, but to do it all there. But in some countries, the law requires civil marriage in a civil setting, so Saints in those areas are married civilly first, and then sealed. This isn't a lot different.

The main point to me though, also already stated, is that a sealing is more than just saying "yes" on your wedding day. It is consistently over time cleaving to one another (and no, it's not just about sex) to build a celestial relationship. That isn't something that fits into the framework of a divorce, especially when a subsequent marriage is in play. Divorce by its very nature is failing to keep fast to all the facets of the sealing covenant, so again, even in the absence of a signature from Salt Lake City, that sealing is not being kept and therefore loses its validity.

Last of all, I firmly believe that no one will be required to spend Eternity with anyone they don't wish to. Including ex-spouses or spouse's exes.

[skippy740]

Bhodi,

This is an LDS Discussion forum, not a questioning and debating forum.

You have received the answer to your question on LDS doctrine and practices.

Thread closed.

[estradling75]

I feel that a very important concept is being missed here... That concept is that God will not force anyone to do or accept more then they are willing too. And that the Sealing Covenant can be effectively be broken and cancelled by an individual unwillingness to live up to the requirements.

So someone who gets divorced after being Sealed is effectively saying I do not what to be with this person any more (much less for eternity) and thus cut themselves off from the blessings that would come with that.

Now the Sealing Ordinance is more then just who you are Sealed to (it also effects kids and the individuals) So the church will keep the Sealing in place in the event of a divorce so those other blessings can remain in place. But God will not in anyway force two people to be together against their wills which will nullify that part of it.

And frankly having sexual relations with anyone that you have not made every attempt and are continually willing to commit to for all Eternity (or at least Time) is a violation of the Law of Chasity. And Church treats it as such