Doc & Cov 58:21 vs plural marriage

[ztodd]

Sorry for the hard question, Doc and Cov 58:21 says "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land."  How is that reconciled with the command to practice plural marriage?

It seemed like a pretty clear cut verse, but are there reasons why that verse could be interpreted to mean that we might have to break the law of the land in order to obey the law of God but that we should submit ourselves to the legal consequences if we choose to do so?

Or perhaps like other scriptures we have to interpret it to mean "generally this is the case, but there could be exceptions"?

[NeuroTypical]

Here's how it's reconciled: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

It seems like the saints mounted a vigorous legal defense on the territory, state, and federal level trying to preserve their rights.  By 1890 we had lost all our legal battles so soundly, that President Woodruff issued the manifesto, and we ended the practice, and we excommunicated anyone who entered into a polygamous union or performed a polygamous wedding.  That left us with trying to do the best we could to deal with people in existing marriages that were enacted before we gave up the fight.   Eventually (and I'm not sure about the timeline), we started just plain old excommunicating anyone in a polygamous marriage.  Hopefully that came after the folks who were sealed when the legal challenges were ongoing, got to live out their natural lives.  But I think there's some feisty stories there.

As far as 2025 goes, with all the cultural "love is love", decreasing marriage rates, and legalizing all the things that used to be illegal, the overall culture doesn't really care any more.  As long as all parties involved consent to it, go for it, says the majority culture these days.   That leaves a lot of old antipolygamy laws on the books, and they're really only used against the odd groups that hit the news as abusing children and whatnot.    But as far as I've heard, the church isn't pushing for any end to antipolygamy laws, or changing it's practices.  Legally, we could probably get away with it if we tried. 

Edited June 5 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

41 minutes ago, ztodd said:

Sorry for the hard question, Doc and Cov 58:21 says "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land."  How is that reconciled with the command to practice plural marriage?

• Plural marriage was introduced somewhere around 1831 to 1834. 
• The Edmunds Act was passed in 1882.
• The Church went through the court system for many years contesting the act with various arguments.
• In 1890 The Manifesto was published.

So, initially, it wasn't illegal.  When it became illegal, we tried to fight it through the legal system and the political process.  When we realized all our options were exhausted, we agreed to comply.

Ironically the LGBTQ movement has brought about conditions that one would be hard-pressed to make an argument that this law would pass Constitutional muster if brought before the Supreme Court -- especially with the vehemence that federal agents persecuted the Saints in the 1880s.

While bigamy laws are on the books in all 50 states, most of the time they get a slap on the wrist and dissolve one or both marriages legally.  But, of course, it is perfectly legal to have "an open marriage."  And they don't prosecute adulterous relationships anymore.  Yeah, that makes sense.

To be perfectly willing to pledge support and fealty to many wives with a legally binding contract: That's illegal.

To only have a legally binding contract with one woman but have free non-binding relationships with as many others as I want.  That's legal.

Edited June 5 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

Another related note: There would be another way around it, if the Lord would choose to command us to practice it again.

It's all about a "legally binding contract."  Notice that the wording for the Law of Chastity has changed?  It used to be "legally and lawfully wedded."  Now it is "according to God's Law."

Any temple marriage may or may not have to include the legal documentation of a "lawful marriage."  Yet, we are married in the eyes of God.

Again, ironically, it is because of the LGBTQ movement.  When they pushed so hard for gay marriage, we had to exclude it with different wording for God's law.  The law of the land abandoned God's law.  So, we re-invoked it for marriage.

It may mean that this will herald a new era of polygamy.  But we actually have a balanced Male/Female ratio.  And we have had that balance pretty much since 1890.

[ztodd]

41 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

...So, initially, it wasn't illegal...  

My understanding is that there were already anti-bigamy laws in place in Illinois when they started the practice.  This is the part that is causing me a little bit of trouble.  So that takes me back to the questions in my initial post.

Edited June 5 by ztodd

[ztodd]

48 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here's how it's reconciled: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

It seems like the saints mounted a vigorous legal defense on the territory, state, and federal level trying to preserve their rights.  By 1890 we had lost all our legal battles so soundly, that President Woodruff issued the manifesto, and we ended the practice, and we excommunicated anyone who entered into a polygamous union or performed a polygamous wedding.  That left us with trying to do the best we could to deal with people in existing marriages that were enacted before we gave up the fight.   Eventually (and I'm not sure about the timeline), we started just plain old excommunicating anyone in a polygamous marriage.  Hopefully that came after the folks who were sealed when the legal challenges were ongoing, got to live out their natural lives.  But I think there's some feisty stories there.

As far as 2025 goes, with all the cultural "love is love", decreasing marriage rates, and legalizing all the things that used to be illegal, the overall culture doesn't really care any more.  As long as all parties involved consent to it, go for it, says the majority culture these days.   That leaves a lot of old antipolygamy laws on the books, and they're really only used against the odd groups that hit the news as abusing children and whatnot.    But as far as I've heard, the church isn't pushing for any end to antipolygamy laws, or changing it's practices.  Legally, we could probably get away with it if we tried. 

Do you know if there is much information out there about what grounds they had for a legal defense?  As I mentioned to Carborendum, there were anti-bigamy laws already, although I don't know too many details about them yet.

[zil2]

I have no idea, but here are some good questions to ask:

1. When the Lord said "laws of the land", did he mean US laws, the constitution, or all laws from all jurisdictions that one happens to be in?  (The Lord has spoken in favor of the US Constitution explicitly, but I don't recall mention of any other laws... Just a thing to consider.)

2. Assuming those Illinois laws existed, did the saints know that? Were they within its jurisdiction? Were the laws worded such that a marriage performed elsewhere (and possibly only performed in the laws of the Church, not by the laws of any civil jurisdiction) was made illegal on arrival of the parties thereto, or was it only forbidding performance of such marriages?  (The answers to these questions dictate whether they violated anti-bigamy laws or adultery laws, for example.)

There are probably other good questions to ask, but I can't say I've ever thought about this before this moment.

[ztodd]

I found this, which helps me out with my concern.  

And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98:4–7; italics added)

Found this at https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/polygamy-denials/.

[Carborendum]

41 minutes ago, ztodd said:

My understanding is that there were already anti-bigamy laws in place in Illinois when they started the practice.  This is the part that is causing me a little bit of trouble.  So that takes me back to the questions in my initial post.

Yes and no.  There were laws on the books.  But the penalties were unclear and all over the board as far as application.

So, if I told you that we have a law that, if you break it, you won't really be punished...

There are many laws on the books today that we entirely ignore.  So, we can get really technical about something that most people of the time didn't care about.

Edited June 5 by Carborendum

[ztodd]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes and no.  There were laws on the books.  But the penalties were unclear and all over the board as far as application.

So, if I told you that we have a law that, if you break it, you won't really be punished...

There are many laws on the books today that we entirely ignore.  So, we can get really technical about something that most people of the time didn't care about.

All the persecuting they faced from it seemed to signify there were some people who really cared about it though.

[ztodd]

37 minutes ago, ztodd said:

I found this, which helps me out with my concern.  

And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98:4–7; italics added)

Found this at https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/polygamy-denials/.

 

If anyone else has the same concern, I recommend the link I gave.  It explains how they felt that these verses meant that any laws legislated that were “more or less” than constitutional, “cometh of evil.”  They felt that the anti-bigamy statutes in Illinois were unconstitutional.

[NeuroTypical]

16 minutes ago, ztodd said:

All the persecuting they faced from it seemed to signify there were some people who really cared about it though.

A fair question would be "did the enemies of the saints care about polygamy, or did they just use polygamy laws as a weapon to specifically target the saints?"

 

[Carborendum]

12 minutes ago, ztodd said:

All the persecuting they faced from it seemed to signify there were some people who really cared about it though.

The enforcement of bigamy laws against any plural marriages before 1882 were VERY few and far between.  And the penalties were not much to speak of.

The horror stories of people being hauled off was the federal government, primarily through the Edmunds Act as stated before.  And it was passed to be specifically targeted at "those darn Mormons."  It also happened to include some language about adultery in general.  But I've only seen anecdotal information that it had ever been used to prosecute against anyone other than LDS.  And eventually, after fighting it in courts, we complied.

[Just_A_Guy]

The whole point to modern prophets is that they offer us the voice of the Lord as attenuated to our own particular time and place.

It is surely not an eternal principle that people must subordinate God’s instructions to civil authority in every instance.  If it were then Daniel would never have gone into the lion’s den, Shadrach & Co would never have gone into the furnace, Judaism would have ended with Esther, Nephi would never have gotten the brass plates, Abinadi would never have stood before Noah, Alma would never have baptized in the wilderness, Alma the Younger would have never entered Ammonihah, Lamoni would have gone up to the land of Nephi with his father, Moroni would never have threatened the chief judge and then retaken Zarahemla from the victorious kingmen, Nephi son of Helaman would have never preached against the corrupt judges, and Samuel the Lamanite would have never stood upon the wall.  And of course, Christ would have never gone to the cross; Peter would never have stood before the chief priests at Jerusalem or ultimately crucified on Vatican Hill, Paul would have never preached to Agrippa, and thousands of early Christians would have renounced their faith instead of going to their deaths in the arena and elsewhere.

D&C 58 and 98 were an expedient given at particular points in time to particular groups in particular circumstances.  The degree to which they apply today is best ascertained by looking at President Nelson’s and the Q15’s most current statements on the topic, which seem to indicate that for the time being—in general—God still expects us to submit ourselves to civil authority.

Edited June 6 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

for the time being—in general—God still expects us to submit ourselves to civil authority.

We're just one global or even national disaster away from some pretty interesting possibilities.  

I think about the dark ages, and Catholics cloistered in monasteries, preserving knowledge and culture.  Fascinating AI summary:

Monasteries during the Middle Ages were often designed with some level of defensibility in mind, especially in regions where they were vulnerable to attacks from raiders or during times of conflict. Here are some key features and considerations regarding the defensibility of monasteries:

Defensive Features
Location: Many monasteries were strategically located on elevated ground, near rivers, or in remote areas to provide natural defenses against potential attackers.
Architecture: Some monasteries were built with fortified walls, towers, and gates. These structures could help protect the inhabitants from invasions and provide a place of refuge during attacks.
Self-Sufficiency: Monasteries often had their own agricultural lands, which allowed them to be self-sufficient. This meant they could sustain themselves during sieges or prolonged conflicts without relying on outside resources.
Community Defense: Monks and nuns were sometimes trained in basic self-defense and could organize to protect their community. In some cases, local laypeople would also come to their aid in times of danger.
Isolation: The secluded nature of many monasteries made them less visible and less likely to be targeted compared to urban centers, which were more prominent and accessible.

 

Then I think about how the church has just been quietly investing surplus tithing funds for decades in real estate and productive farmland.  

Then I think about the continual cultural decline of the United States, the ascendancy of China, and how every empire comes with an expiration date built in.  

[Ironhold]

On 6/5/2025 at 12:44 PM, Carborendum said:

 

To only have a legally binding contract with one woman but have free non-binding relationships with as many others as I want.  That's legal.

"I'd rather a polygamist who doesn't polyg than a monogamist who doesn't monog." - Senator Boies Penrose, in response to the fact that many of the politicians so adamant about keeping B. H. Roberts (?) out of office were known adulterers. 

[Carborendum]

On 6/6/2025 at 4:38 PM, Ironhold said:

"I'd rather a polygamist who doesn't polyg than a monogamist who doesn't monog." - Senator Boies Penrose, in response to the fact that many of the politicians so adamant about keeping B. H. Roberts (?) out of office were known adulterers. 

Exactly.