Now, before I start this thread I want to clearly state that the question about to be asked is not meant to be a red rag to a bull but a genuine request for an answer. Also, if this thread decends into a 'fisticuff' I will delete this thread. Please be aware that I am not in the US time zone so it may get deleted a little late.
I was talking to my other half about Hatrack, and we moved on to talking about LDSs.
He mentioned that he had seen a BBC documenatry and there was a guy claiming to be a Mormon who had many wives and had married his daughter.
Having spent so much time in Hatrack, I am very aware that the question of poligamy is one that the LDSs view with distain and bordom. No doubt you have had to answer it many times, even when it is asked in provocation. I am also aware that all of you believe strongly in marriage (to one person) and your community.
However, in the 6 years I have been here, I have not read a disinterested opinion on poligamy within the Mormon church or why some Mormons (or people who claim to be Mormons) have been interviewed by the BBC and say they have many wives etc.
So, I would be grateful to know:
What is the Mormon perspective with regards to Poligamy? How the BBC interviewed a person claiming to be Mormon who had many wives? How Mormons view those who claim to be Mormons who have many wives?
Thank you in advance for not allowing this thread to be derailed.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Firebird, don't hit me, but what name were you posting under other than this, I've been curious about that a few days, if it isn't common knowledge, you don't have to say.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Polygamist splinter groups sometimes self-identify as "Mormon". However, they are specifically excluded from the Church. So they're not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whatever they claim to be.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
We tend to be very conscious of the Mormons-are-polygamists stereotype. For instance, my (male) manager took me and two other women out to lunch to celebrate the completion of a very difficult project that all of us contributed greatly to. When the waitress asked how the bill would be handled, my manager said he'd take it (he had the company credit card--no, he's not that generous). One of the other women at the table said, "Our husband will be paying for it."
We all laughed because it is funny considering we're in Utah. I have to admit, though, I'm repulsed by and afraid of the splinter groups who claim to be Mormon and who marry multiple women, especially young girls and relatives. I feel for the women and wonder why they don't get out. I'm frustrated that these kind of people are self-identifying with the group that I am proud to be a member of.
So there are mixed feelings. Definitely.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What is the Mormon perspective with regards to Poligamy?
That is is a practice that is correct and good when God commands it, such as with the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and in the 1800s.
quote:How the BBC interviewed a person claiming to be Mormon who had many wives?
When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints discontinued the practice of polygamy about 100 years ago, groups of people did not stop. They may call themselves Mormons, but any member of the LDS church that practices polygamy will get excommunicated from the church.
quote: How Mormons view those who claim to be Mormons who have many wives?
Simultaneously as a group of crazies that have nothing to do with us and as an embarrasing break-away group that we wish had nothing to do with us.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I feel for the women and wonder why they don't get out.
Not all the women who do this are victims.
A good friend of my aunt married a girl that grew up in a polygamist family in Wyoming. She was a member of the LDS Church and said she wanted nothing to do with polygamy. But after several years of marriage, she told him that he needed to find a second wife or she would leave him. He did so and they were both excommunicated from the church.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
Just to put my own two cents in, Mormons may have practiced polygamy at one time, but it was never appropriate or right to marry one's own daughter.
This event has never been sanctified by the LDS church.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, yes, thanks, Zarex. I hadn't even noticed that.
That should be your first clue that something is wrong with what this guy's saying, and that he may be out of touch with reality.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
All,
Thank you for your answers. I now feel armed for the next time I here '... mormons ... poligamy ...'.
(as an aside, I would always get wound up on my Hatrack friends behalves, but then didn't have the right answers to refute the claim. Now I do. Phew!)
I'm now off to my European bed ... please don't let this thread derail while I am asleep.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brinestone: I feel for the women and wonder why they don't get out.
It's my understanding that some of the polygamous cults (I'm thinking of the Jeffs cult, especially, here) don't give the women enough freedom for them to be able to get out, and that if they do get away somehow, the men go out and haul them back if they can find them. I certainly don't think its as easy as those women being able to just get up and walk away if they are not happy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Also, when you're raised with that kind of domination, it can amount to brainwashing. It can really be very hard for them to realize that they have a choice, even if they do.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Lack of education, from the ability to read, to getting to the next town over, to being able to drive a car would also make it very difficult to get out.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
The reason that polygamy gets confused with the LDS church is because the church, at one time, approved of it. Joseph Smith started the practiced and Brigham Young embraced the practice. Polygamy was originally called “The New and Everlasting Covenant” (TNaEC). TNaEC is now understood to mean regular marriage in the LDS holy temple. TNaEC may originally included monogamous temple marriage and polygamous temple marriage, but I am under the impression that it was specifically polygamy—I could be wrong.
In the Doctrine and Covenants chapter 132 , it gives the official church doctrine of polygamy. Verses 7, 15-17 are a very good introduction that shows the importance of the priesthood and how the LDS faith views spiritual/temple covenants.
Verses 61-63 introduces the functional concept of polygamy.
In the latter 1800s, the US government started to jail men who where polygamous and threatened to take away church property. The fourth President of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, received a revelation of what would happen to the church if they did not submit to the laws of the land, and he revoked temporal polygamy. His Official Declaration is also in the Doctrine and Covenants.
quote: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.
quote:The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
At that time, there was a segment of the Mormon Population who felt betrayed and that the church had lost their way by giving in to the secular laws. They continue to practice polygamy, use the Book of Mormon, use the Doctrine and Covenants, and call themselves Mormon. That group has also splintered several times. It is from them that people like Warren Jeffs comes from.
The relationship between the LDS church and it’s distant cousins in polygamy is icy at best. Anyone in the LDS faith who has study groups with polygamous will probably be excommunicated.
When news groups look at Mormonism, they often will attach fringe people from the Polygamous group as an example of Mormonism. Elizebeth Smart’s kidnapper embraced polygamy and was an individual fanatic who doesn’t even represent the core polygamous groups. The Lafferty brothers also embraced polygamy and murdered one of the brother’s wife and toddler. I am sure that there are some individuals that married their own daughter, but they are generally fanatics who started their own (or belong to) a splinter group of the polygamous group that is a splinter group of LDS Mormonism.
In my ward, when I was Mormon, one of the Sisters, who was a Daughter of Zion ( a social group of people with polygamous heritage –which usually means social status since most polygamous families had men who were in important church/government positions), bore her testimony about her grandfather. He had raised an Indian girl who was left on his doorstep. When she was of age (14 or 16), she had no place to go. Whites wouldn’t accept her and the Indian population wouldn’t accept her. Brigham Young commanded him to marry her so that she would be supported.
Her testimony (an expression of faith during worship members can do on the first Sunday of the month) revolved around how spiritual her grandfather was because he obeyed the prophet.
I don’t know if the story is true. The members were certainly VERY uncomfortable. This lady always was a little strange. The standard Mormon would be very uncomfortable with that testimony.
I hope this helps why some people confuse Mormonism with polygamy.
[ November 02, 2005, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I fell like throwing in my 2 cents too.
What is the Mormon perspective with regards to Polygamy? Like mph said, it is something that God has, at various times, commanded among his followers. Usually, it is something that God commands of a select few (including the early history of the LDS church), not the population at large. Personally, polygamy is something that I've always had trouble understanding (even though one of my ancestors was a polygamist). To me, when thinking of the early LDS church, polygamy makes sense within the context of that time. There were a large number of women without husbands (many died either from mob violence or during the migration west) and were without a means of support. So, polygamy (at least in modern times) would be a way of caring for members of society who may not otherwise have a means of support - it's not about seeing how many women a guy can have.
How the BBC interviewed a person claiming to be Mormon who had many wives? The news media always focuses on the extreme, in whatever form it takes. This is just another example of that.
How Mormons view those who claim to be Mormons who have many wives? I think they are sadly misguided and are deliberately going against governmental and religious rules. Anyone claiming to have many wives is not a part of the maintstream LDS church, but rather a part of a splinter group, sometimes with themselves as the only member.
[Edited to try to clarify]
[ November 02, 2005, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The thing that troubles me about this doctrine is this: if the practice wasn't abolished just to keep Mormons from getting murdered, but by revelation that it wasn't necessary anymore, then why can a man still be sealed to more than one woman? It makes it seem like very little was changed, except for the outward practice that made them 'other' enough to be hunted for sport.
Not that that isn't a good plan in and of itself, but it seems like if it's good enough for the next life it should be okay in this one, too.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: There were a large number of women without husbands (many died either from mob violence or during the migration west) and were without a means of support. To me, this sets up polygamy (at least in modern times) as a way of caring for members of society who may not otherwise have a means of support - it's not about seeing how many women a guy can have.
Polygamy did not result from persecution, polygamy was one of the causes of persecution. I think you would be hard pressed to find more examples of people who entered polygamy out of desperation then out of holy duty.
A Mormon Mother would be a very good book read. It is an autobiography of Sister Tanner and what life was like as the church transcended from polygamy to non-polygamy. One of the points she makes is that many members felt it was the second or third wife that held the keys to the Celestial Kingdom.
When you read her book, it places D&C 132 in really good context.
Polygamy was not instituted to bring the saints west or to take care of helpless woman. Many women who entered polygamy were already married. It was a divine commandment that supported your ascension into Godhead.
EDIT: To reflect the link for a Mormon Mother is located at Deseret Books. I don't want anyone to suppose the book is anti-Mormon.
[ November 02, 2005, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:if the practice wasn't abolished just to keep Mormons from getting murdered, but by revelation that it wasn't necessary anymore, then why can a man still be sealed to more than one woman?
If you re-read the Official Declaration in my long post, you realize that the revelation pertained to what would happen if the church didn't stop polygamy. It was about submitting to the government--hence the polygamous splinter groups who feel LDS Mormons have lost their way.
The revelation was to conform to the laws of the land, the Church still very much believes in the principal. That is why a man can be married to more then one woman in the temple--provided the first wife has passed away. Ironically, the first wife can no longer give or not give her consent.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
So, I was right. I wish that made me feel better.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
lem, I didn't mean to say that polygamy was a direct result of social conditions, merely that it would have a been a good way of dealing with things as they were. I've also never heard the theory that the "new and everlasting covenant" originally referred to polygamy. Do you remember where you got this idea? It is interesting to me that this phrase (in the D&C) also refers to baptism, not just marriage in the temple.
One thing I think most people forget is that a very small percentage of LDS people practiced polygamy during the early history of the church (I wish I could find the exactly number, but I remember the percentage being in the single digits). Also, it was always done in response to revelation. It wasn't something done willy nilly by everyone.
Olivet - I know it doesn't make it any better. I know it bothers me too. As unsatisfactory as it is, I've decided it's something that I don't understand right now and since I don't have a pressing need to understand it right now, I leave it at that.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Do you remember where you got this idea? It is interesting to me that this phrase (in the D&C) also refers to baptism, not just marriage in the temple.
I can't. I have read a lot of books and have poor recall. I also tend to blend things together, so I am probably wrong on that.
As I was writing it, it occurred to me that TNaEC was referring to anything sealed by the priesthood. I will look into it more and see if I can find a source. If I can't, then I submit to it referring to any Priesthood Blessing sealed on earth and heaven.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've heard people from the polygamist gropus say that TNaEC only refers to plural marriage, but nobody else.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I've heard people from the polygamist gropus say that TNaEC only refers to plural marriage, but nobody else.
I know for sure I have heard it from them. Since they are closer to the original church then the LDS church (fundamental), I trust their interpretation of 132 more then the official church statements. Because I left the church, my views are biased and I freely admit my bias.
The churches official definition of THaEC is found on their website .
quote: The fulness of the gospel is called the new and everlasting covenant. It includes the covenants made at baptism, during the sacrament, in the temple, and at any other time. The Lord calls it "everlasting" because it is ordained by an everlasting God and because the covenant will never be changed. He gave this same covenant to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and other prophets. In this sense it is not new. But the Lord calls it "new" because each time the gospel is restored after being taken from the earth, it is new to the people who receive it (see Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 37:26).
I will see if I can find an accepted LDS source that supports the polygamous view. I do believe that several church practices have changed over the years (like the endowment ceremony), and so I hold the belief that the interpretation of 132 and TNaEC would also change as the church distances itself from polygamy. Without a reference, I am just being snarky. I don’t want to be that, so I will look more closely and admit I am probably wrong. The burden of proof rests on my shoulders since I started the claim in this thread.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Since they are closer to the original church then the LDS church (fundamental)
That does not mean they are closer to the original church. It means that they think they are.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Just a note to add to the great answers already here, and really more of interest to those thinking about the eternal ramifications of polygamy: notice that some early polygamous marriages in the church were to women already married to other men, in other words, polyandry is just as valid eternally as polygyny. Also, my understanding is that women who were widowed and remarried while alive, even multiple times, are now sealed to all the husbands in the temple. I'm not sure whether that's a reflection of the eternal validity of polyandry or just a decision to do everything we need to do on our part here on earth and let those in the next life sort it out.
Note: this has NO bearing on marriages in mortal life, but only concerns the afterlife.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
In societies worldwide today in which polygamy is legal and commonly practiced, for instance in some Arab and African societies, church members are nevertheless constrained to marry one spouse only, until death of one of the spouses. In other words, monogamy is the law of the church even in places where polygamy is socially and legally acceptable, which shows to me that monogamy during mortal life has a spiritual importance to the church that goes beyond simply complying with local laws or avoiding persecution.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Here is the reasoning why I think The New and Everlasting Covenant is about Polygamy. If you go to BYU’s homepage, you can read the Journal of Discourses. Altho they are not official doctrine, what was taught was considered to be true doctrine by the members of that time.
quote:The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of Gods, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain a glory and may be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused them
D&C 132 says:
quote: 6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulnessthereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
In A Mormon Mother, she makes it clear that Polygamy was necessary to attain the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
So—and here is my train of thought—if you can only become a God and attain the highest degree of Glory if you are polygamist, and The New and Everlasting Covenant is institutes for the fullness of glory, then the fullness of Glory MUST include polygamy - because anything less then that is a type of damnation. Even if you attain the Celestial Kingdom, you can not attain the highest degree without Polygamy.
I am not saying this is official church doctrine. It certainly isn’t doctrine now. It is significant that the early saint population accepted this as doctrine. It is therefore reasonable to accept that TNaEC refers to polygamy in its fullness.
I will have try and dig deeper.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
This was on the CNN homepage today. It links the fall of polygamy with Utah joining the Union. Is this an accurate statement?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I know that there are LDS who believe that *all* marriages in the next life will be polygamist. My sis-in-law stated that she believes this just the other day.
Also, I think one of the reasons why some LDS break off from the mainstream and join splinter polygamous groups is that they look at the history of polygamy in the church, what was believed and what was said, and decide that it is necessary for exaltation, and therefore they ought to be living it regardless of what current church authority says.
While it is commonly said that only a small percentage of people lived polygamous marriages, it seems to me that that percentage gradually increased over time to the point where it was openly taught that it was something everyone needed to do. As for getting married willy nilly, I know for a fact that one of Porter's polygamous ancestors was away from his first wife for a period of time traveling and came home with a brand new wife. Surprise!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Utah probably could not have become a state while polygamy was widely practices and approved of, and it certainly could have been a factor in the decision to end polygamy.
But still I don't think that it's an accurate statement to say that the Chruch changed policy "as a condition of statehood".
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Just curious. Normally I wouldn't have asked, but seeing as how this discussion was actively occurring here, the CNN story provided the catalyst.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
This is all really interesting. I'm really grateful for the openness of the responces here and I'm also greatful and impressed that this thread has remained so measured.
<Small round of applause to you all!>
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That's Hatrack for you. ^_^ Most of the time, anyway.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: As for getting married willy nilly, I know for a fact that one of Porter's polygamous ancestors was away from his first wife for a period of time traveling and came home with a brand new wife. Surprise!
Who was that?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Chauncy Porter, I believe.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thanks. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think he is actually an uncle rather than a direct-line ancestor.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: Just a note to add to the great answers already here, and really more of interest to those thinking about the eternal ramifications of polygamy: notice that some early polygamous marriages in the church were to women already married to other men, in other words, polyandry is just as valid eternally as polygyny. Also, my understanding is that women who were widowed and remarried while alive, even multiple times, are now sealed to all the husbands in the temple. I'm not sure whether that's a reflection of the eternal validity of polyandry or just a decision to do everything we need to do on our part here on earth and let those in the next life sort it out.
That would also seem to answer my question, but since no other LDS have said anything about this, I wonder if they either didn't read it or are avoiding contradicting Tatiana publicly.
I am really curious about this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Also, my understanding is that women who were widowed and remarried while alive, even multiple times, are now sealed to all the husbands in the temple.
No, this is not correct.
Sometimes widows will get sealed again, and nothing is mentioned of the previous sealing. It looks like they are being sealed to several husbands. The truth is that they are breaking the seal to the first husband, but generally don't talk about it, since everyone would have an opinion. I agree with this for the privacy concerns, but the anecdotes occasionally lead to confusion about what is possible.
Added: Wait, I'm not sure what she's saying. I know for certain that a living woman cannot be married to more than one husband, but I don't know for certain about sealings for the dead. I suspect it is the same, but the certain knowledge is only for the first scenario.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe she is saying that there were women in early LDS history that were married and sealed to one man though they were already legally married to another. Like Dinah Kirkham (fictional example) in Saints. I don't know if that was a part of OSC's novel that was supposed to be historically accurate, or if it was part of the "fiction" half of "historical fiction." Perhaps Tatiana has some historical sources she could point us to?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It is my understanding that that happened as well. There is no doctrine, however, on polyandry, and I would suspect that most LDS do not think it is doctrinally supportable.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, my understanding is that women who were widowed and remarried while alive, even multiple times, are now sealed to all the husbands in the temple. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is not correct.
Actually, Kat, it is correct.
I knew two young widows who were sealed to two men at the same time. One joined the church after her first husband had died and was married (sealed)to hubby #2 and then he stood in and was proxy for hubby #1. There was no indication that the sealing was being "undone", in fact she was sealed to her second husband first.
I think this is a topic that we have very little knowledge on, and most of the speculation I read is in direct contradiction to cases that I know of.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I thought it had been, but it turns out that the first sealing had been broken.
I'm going to have to go with "we are not sure." How do we find out for sure? Maybe I'll hunt up the temple president this week.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I am pretty sure it is correct as well. I've always understood it to mean that a woman can choose which husband she wants to be with eternally--no burnt bridges. Not that she may be married to more than one eternally.
Edit: Kat, you may find the answer to this question a hard one to find. It seems that quite often individual cases are treated differently. I tried asking many different members of my family earlier this year, and they all had anecdotal examples seeming to support differing positions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then why did my mother's friend and my friend's aunt have to break their first sealings in order to be sealed to the second husband? They did have to - it was a very traumatic decision for my mother's friend.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I had one sealer tell me unequivocally that a living woman cannot be sealed to more than one husband.
But about the dead-- I've heard that's more along the lines of "seal them all and it will be worked out" in practice.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(My mother-in-law has been sealed twice. I have never had the courage-- or lack of tact-- to ask her, but my understanding is that the seal to her first husband had to be broken-- although the children are still sealed to both their natural parents. That may be why my sister-in-law, who was old enough to understand at the time, had a real problem with her mother's remarriage even though she loves her step-dad. And then, my husband's half-brother, from the second marriage, is sealed to both his natural parents. So it may be kind of an "extended family" situation going on in the eternities. )
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
So, if I get this correctly, a man may be eternally sealed to more than woman, but a woman cannot be eternally sealed to more than one man. These other sealings are just to allow the woman to keep her eternal options open?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: So, if I get this correctly, a man may be eternally sealed to more than woman, but a woman cannot be eternally sealed to more than one man. These other sealings are just to allow the woman to keep her eternal options open?
I think that's the general idea, but we really don't know for sure.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that's the idea.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
This is exactly what I asked my family about. And I got some very different answers. This leads me to believe there is a certain amount of autonomy amongst Temple Presidents who govern the matter as they see fit. It may be that they seek personal revelation for individual circumstances. Some say previous sealings must be broken, but others don't. That's what it seemed like from the information I was getting.
This is just one of those things that nobody talks about. No one wants to ask a widowed or divorced woman if her previous sealing was broken. I mean, how do you do that tactfully? It's like asking someone why they aren't married or when they are gonna have kids. And there is nothing specific about it in any scripture teachings or conference talks that I am aware of.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I think the issue doesn't come up often, because I believe that most widows don't get sealed when they remarry.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
One thing we know about Sealings are that early in the Church, when the concept and idea was first revealed, there was a lot of muddy details, and a lot of confusion.
Instead of just Marriage sealings, people were sealed to Church authorities (that they were not physically married to at ALL), with the apparant thought that this would grant, well, something better. Some people sealed themselves to great historical figures.
Eventually, things were Officially Sorted Out, and the Right Way To Do Things was laid down clearly.
Doctrines were very rarely revealed Fully Grown form the Head of Zeus - but line by line, precept by precept. Like puzzle pieces slowly coming together. First grasp this concept, then grasp the next, and then look: those two concepts are actually meant to be ONE, and now together, you can understand the full meaning of it.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
My favorite court case ever is from Utah in 1902. It's called Hilton v. Roylance. The case really involved kind of a complicated property rights issue, but the single question the whole thing revolved around was the nature or effect of an LDS sealing ceremony. The Utah Supreme Court (not packed with LDS members at the time, AFAIK), actually took judicial notice of a whole ream of LDS scripture and doctrine, in order to answer the question, What does a sealing actually mean?
The case involved a woman who had converted to the Church in England around 1870. She emigrated to Utah, and met an older LDS man who began courting her. In 1872, she became seriously ill, and it was thought she would not survive. Her LDS acquaintances, apparently from prominent LDS families, recommended that she be sealed before her death, and suggested her suitor. The suitor agreed, but only after he was assured most strenuously that the woman would almost certainly not live; he thought that, if she were in good health, she might not really want to marry him, and under the circumstances he didn't want to take advantage. At any rate, the sealing took place, and the woman later recovered. They never lived as husband and wife, and the next year they obtained a "church divorce", or what we would now call a cancellation of sealing. They were never, however, legally divorced. It seems they didn't think it was necessary, because they had never considered themselves married in the first place.
Years later, when the man died, the question arose as to whether he was legally married to the woman at the time of his death. One party, who had purchased some property from the man, claimed that he was not married because the original sealing had not been intended to be binding during the couple's lives, but only "in the eternities", i.e. after their deaths. After examining LDS scripture and the words of LDS authorities, the court concluded that there is no such thing in LDS doctrine as a sealing for eternity only and not for time on earth. Every sealing is, by definition, for time AND eternity. Therefore, even though the woman had remarried and had a large family, she was legally married to the man at the time of his death.
Confusion about how sealings work has, therefore, even found its way into state Supreme Court cases. At least the Court ended up getting it right in this case.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:This was on the CNN homepage today. It links the fall of polygamy with Utah joining the Union. Is this an accurate statement?
That is only part of the reason. What most people, and even Mormons, don't seem to understand is that it is actually linked to the VERY SURVIVAL OF THE CHURCH AS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION!
Yes, Utah wouldn't be allowed into the Union without stopping Polygamy. Yes, Mormons wanted to be in the Union. However, people seem to forget that most religious leaders (who happened to be polygamous, and only 20 percent of the full membership ever were at one time) were hunted down and put in jail. On top of that, the Church organization was getting liquidated of any and all assets (and took a whole generation to get out of the debt) by the same Union it wantedt to participate.
Wilford Woodruff, the President and Prophet of the Church, stated that the main reason he stopped the practice was a Revelation he had. What he saw was that all Temples would be taken away and destroyed. Basically, the central pinacle of Mormon Worship would be wiped out. And, for Mormons, get rid of Temple worship and the whole purpose of existance is gone from the Earth. The rest is just temporary window dressing.
I think that point wasn't emphasised to protect the already weak church from getting attacked directly. I mean, as Brigham Young said, every time a Temple went up the bells of hell would ring. so, I think, once the ability to build Temples was taken away -- there would be nothing left to save.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The anti-bigamy laws were enforced in a pretty draconian fashion once Utah joined the union. Men had to abandon completely all of their ex-wives and the children from those wives or be prosecuted for bigamy. My great-grandmother told of hiding out in the corn fields when the feds came by her father's house to check because he wasn't supposed to have any contact with her.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: They were never, however, legally divorced.
But if this is true, then they were never actually legally married, either. Because if being unsealed doesn't count as legal divorce, being sealed doesn't count as legal marriage.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
That depends on if the same laws of marriage applied then as they do now. Apparently the Court decided that by the definition of the time they were legally married, but not legally divorced. At any rate, neither here nor there for me on that one.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That wouldn't be all that different than today -- religious marriages are recognized as legal marriages by the state, but religious institutions cannot process a divorce.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:religious marriages are recognized as legal marriages by the state
Even without a marriage license? *curious*
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I got my information from Times and Seasons, a mormon group blog with lots of smart LDS people on it. We discussed this once and that was the consensus, that women can now be sealed to more than one man. I think the practice has changed fairly recently, though, and isn't uniformly done this way. Doctrinally it's unclear, as well, whether anyone believes in polyandry in the afterlife. We'll see when we get there, I suppose. Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: women can now be sealed to more than one man. I think the practice has changed fairly recently, though, and isn't uniformly done this way.
Wow. That is a big change. All my life I've heard that women can only be sealed to one man, and I've never seen anything to contridict it. That is, I've been told that so and so had to had first seal broken from man_1.0 to be sealed to man_2.0. Or so and so didn' get sealed to man_2.0 because she didn't want to break seal with man_1.0. In fact, I recall that several women in the early church were sealed to Joseph Smith and *lived* with other men. Eliza R. Snow was sealed to JS and married to BY but not sealed.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Knowing Times and Seasons "Mixing Scripture with Lawyer Speak," I would still consider it unproven speculation.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
My whole take on polygamy is that it is a culture thing. Western culture hates polygamy. I know the Lincoln's Republican party's platform was 2 marks of barberism: slavery and polygamy...
Arab culture and African culture don't hate polygamy so.
So, given the parent culture, people who practice polygamy will be different people. People who practice polygamy in Western nations today are, well, anti-social and some adjective that is really bad that I can't think of (I don't like crazy because it doesn't really nail their behavior down--they are beligerent, they want to show the world they are above their rules, crazy doesn't convey that). Aha: they think they are god or his long lost twin (I think that describes the Jeff guy).
In the early days of the church, they were pretty much their own culture, they aren't like the anti-social people today. Of course, I believe the early members of the church were commanded by God, which is a big difference in my mind from people doing it today because they think they are god('s twin).
So to compare early members with the people today is no comparision. Just like if you go to countries where they practice polygamy now. Those people don't think they are god('s twin) like the people in US. They are doing something that is practiced by their culture.
I'm rather guessing because I don't actually know anyone outside of US who practices polygamy.
I should also say I grew up with several kids who had more than one mom. They were very very nice people, not like what you hear about in the news. Several of them joined the church (their parents had been excommunicated I guess).
I also have ancestors who moved to Mexico to continue practicing polygamy after the practice was officially stopped. There were lots of members down there who were in good standing. They were some of the last to give up polygamy and still be members.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Even without a marriage license?
No. But a marriage license only certifies that the couple is eligible to be married. They aren't actually married without the action of an officiant.
To put it another way -- clergy can be the officiating signiture on a marriage document, but not a divorce decree.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
In very early church history, some women were sealed to men that they were not married to (one of my greatx4 grandmothers was sealed to Joseph Smith, though she was never in any other sense married to him and was married at least twice that I can remember). It would seem to me that modern decisions regarding a woman being sealed to more than one man is at the discretion of the temple presidents. One of my aunts was widowed at a fairly young age (and had been sealed to her first husband). When she was remarried she was told that, should she choose, she could also be sealed to her second husband (without the indication that it would cancel her first sealing). It seems to me like "cover all the bases and let everything get sorted out in eternity", which is fine with me.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Tom Davidson:"But if this is true, then they were never actually legally married, either. Because if being unsealed doesn't count as legal divorce, being sealed doesn't count as legal marriage."
dkw is right on this. A sealing counts, and counted then, as a legal marriage. The officiator signs the marriage license, and so do the witnesses.
The strange thing in this case, from my own point of view, is that the Church was willing to grant a cancellation of sealing without the couple obtaining a legal divorce first. That would, AFAIK, be impossible today. In fact, today it is difficult to obtain a cancellation of sealing even if you DO get divorced legally. The Church is reluctant to do it unless you are about to get remarried.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:My whole take on polygamy is that it is a culture thing. Western culture hates polygamy.
Are you sure? The most common form of marrage in most western nations, including the USA, is serial polygamy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The strange thing in this case, from my own point of view, is that the Church was willing to grant a cancellation of sealing without the couple obtaining a legal divorce first
I imagine it's because they didn't consider them to be married in the first place. Why get a divorce if they aren't married?
quote: The most common form of marrage in most western nations, including the USA, is serial polygamy.
No, that's called serial monogomy.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
mph:"I imagine it's because they didn't consider them to be married in the first place."
But that's what's strange. They knew a sealing had taken place, but didn't consider themselves married? That could never happen today. It just doesn't fit in with the LDS view of sealing/marriage. But apparently, under certain circumstances, it could make sense in the early LDS Church.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: A sealing counts, and counted then, as a legal marriage. The officiator signs the marriage license, and so do the witnesses.
But then the sealing isn't the legal marriage. The signing of the marriage license is the legal marriage. That they happen at the same time does not mean that they're the same event.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:That they happen at the same time does not mean that they're the same event.
I agree with this as well, especially considering there are plenty of cases where a married couple gets sealed years later. They are two different things that quite often happen at the same time.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Tom,
Since, today, a sealing of a previously unmarried couple is ALWAYS concurrent with a legal marriage, the two events are usually referred to by a single term. If my failure to separate the terms in describing the court case caused confusion, I apologize.
The point is that, in the court case, the couple was married in a sealing ceremony, but one party to the suit claimed that the sealing/marriage was intended by the couple to only have effect in the afterlife, and not in mortality. The Court held that LDS doctrine does not provide for any such sealing/marriage, and that in the absence of a legal divorce the couple was still married at the time of the man's death.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, if they signed the marriage document, then they were right. If they had been sealed but not married, I would say they were wrong. But I know that's not done (now, anyway.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The point is that, in the court case, the couple was married in a sealing ceremony, but one party to the suit claimed that the sealing/marriage was intended by the couple to only have effect in the afterlife, and not in mortality. The Court held that LDS doctrine does not provide for any such sealing/marriage, and that in the absence of a legal divorce the couple was still married at the time of the man's death.
And MY point is that legally, it shouldn't matter at all what LDS doctrine says. If they signed a marriage certificate, they were legally married in this life. If they didn't, they weren't. There is as I understand it no implied marriage certificate.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I agree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course, given the time frame we're talking about, it's entirely possible that not all marriages had certificates back then; we may have added some legal requirements nowadays to what used to be presumptions.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I was just reviewing the case, and it appears that there was no "marriage license" per se at the time. There was a "certificate of sealing" signed by the officiator (Daniel H. Wells, a member of the LDS First Presidency) and the witnesses. Much of the law about how a marriage was contracted was, at the time, common law. The Court went into a bit of detail on the subject, but the upshot was that under State law at the time a sealing did constitute a legal marriage, as long as the necessary element of consent of the parties was present.
Consent/intent of the parties was important in this case, because it was claimed that the parties had never intended to be married in life. The Court concluded that the parties knowingly were sealed, and that a sealing is by definition for both "time" and "eternity".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*wipes brow* Whew. That makes a lot more sense, then. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But that's what's strange. They knew a sealing had taken place, but didn't consider themselves married? That could never happen today. It just doesn't fit in with the LDS view of sealing/marriage. But apparently, under certain circumstances, it could make sense in the early LDS Church.
It fits in much better with some of the weird things that were happening in the early Utah church (sealing women to dead men they had never known, etc.).
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Upon reflection, I think they DID consider themselves married. What they didn't recognize was the distinction between a cancellation of sealing and a divorce. They (the couple) assumed that, since they had been married by the Church, the Church could also dissolve the marriage. This may have been much easier to believe in the territory of Utah at the time, since there was so much overlap between the Church and the government.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
For the sake of comparison, Roman Catholic nuns consider themselves married to God / Jesus so the pratice isn't without root.
On an aside ... to add extra perspective to the questions regarding man / woman discrimination. Aristotle, in many texts, is 'claimed' to be sexist, while others just say that his man centrism is purely a function of the time in which he wrote.
Knowing very very little about LDS, I would propose that the disparity regarding the doctrines concerning polygamy for men and women is purely a function of the era in which polygamy was disucssed and relevant rather than sexism. One of the strengths of LDSs is the fact that the religion can and does change with time.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)