D&c 132:43

[inquiringmind]

What does D&C 132:43 mean?

And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.43?lang=eng

Wouldn't every publicly married couple (before the wording of the marriage ceremony was changed) have been "under a vow" to keep themselves "wholly for each other, and from all others" during their mortal lives?

...Melissa Lott's examination is not well handled by Compton's book, which claims that "Melissa recalled the wedding vow: You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives'" ...In Sacred Loneliness fails to note that these words were put in Melissa's mouth on cross-examination and are taken from the 1835 article on marriage that continued to be published in the RLDS Doctrine and Covenants...Under aggressive interrogation, Melissa insisted a half-dozen times that she could not remember the ceremony, other than that it was "for time and all eternity." Then the RLDS lawyer sought to gain her admission that her Nauvoo ceremony was identical to that first published in the Kirtland Doctrine and Covenants. Her answer was, "To the best of my recollection, I don't think it was." Persisting, he then read the above words that were still in the RLDS Doctrine and Covenants and obtained her weary response, "That is as I understand it, as nearly as I can remember." But the witness obviously did not remember, as she had avowed repeatedly. When the RLDS attorney pressed the point that the 1835 language would restrict Joseph from marital relations with Emma, Melissa answered: "I don't think that he made any particular promise of that kind." In spite of courtroom manipulation, Melissa reiterated that she did not remember the Nauvoo ceremony beyond its promise of time and eternity.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/10/2/S00006-The_Prophet_Joseph_Smith_and_His_Plural_Wives.html

And wouldn't that make the lawful practice of polygamy impossible, if D&C 132:43 means anything?

Very confused now, please help.

[Robert F. Smith]

You are apparently reading vs 43 in isolation.  It must be read in the context of vss 41-44, which is discussing the rules pertaining to plural marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant).

 

Seems to me that you need a specialist in that period, preferably a legal scholar who understands the context.  Asking Todd Compton to revisit that issue now might be very helpful..

[cinepro]

Very confused now, please help.

 

 

My only advice would be to do what most LDS do and stop reading Section 132 at verse 33.  The rest of the section takes you down the rabbit hole. 

[inquiringmind]

Does anyone know the exact wording of the marriage vows taken in a civil ceremony in 19th century America?

Or the wording of the vows taken by Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians of that era?

I ask because, if all these ceremonies borrowed from the English book of Common Prayer, all the men who participated in them (when asked if they accepted the women standing beside them as their wives) vowed to cling to them, forsaking all others, as long as they both should live, and that gives me a real problem understanding D&C 132:43.

And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.43?lang=eng

Were there any married American men who weren't "under a vow" in 1843?

What kind of ceremony did Joseph and Emma take part in, and would he have been under a vow?

Does anyone here know?

[inquiringmind]

It seems Joseph and Emma were married by a Judge, in a civil ceremony, in South Bainbridge New York, in 1827.

Is it possible to find out what words would have been used in such a ceremony, and whether Joseph would have been "under a vow" in 1843?

[inquiringmind]

You are apparently reading vs 43 in isolation.  It must be read in the context of vss 41-44, which is discussing the rules pertaining to plural marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant).

 

Seems to me that you need a specialist in that period, preferably a legal scholar who understands the context.  Asking Todd Compton to revisit that issue now might be very helpful..

is he here?

 

Do you know him?

 

Can you ask him?

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Does anyone know the exact wording of the marriage vows taken in a civil ceremony in 19th century America?

Or the wording of the vows taken by Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians of that era?

I ask because, if all these ceremonies borrowed from the English book of Common Prayer, all the men who participated in them (when asked if they accepted the women standing beside them as their wives) vowed to cling to them, forsaking all others, as long as they both should live, and that gives me a real problem understanding D&C 132:43.

 

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.43?lang=eng

Were there any married American men who weren't "under a vow" in 1843?

What kind of ceremony did Joseph and Emma take part in, and would he have been under a vow?

Does anyone here know?

 

I think it a major mistake to substitute speculation for fact in such an inquiry.  As long as you read D&C 132 out of context and without legal counsel, you are assuming a problem exists based on the word "vow" alone.  If you want to research it yourself (instead of having Todd Compton do it for you), you need to start with the multivolume Oxford English Dictionary, and then go on to assemble the dozens of different marriage liturgies along with civil wording in many antebellum jurisdictions.  Then you must begin reading books and articles on marriage (including plural marriage) in that period, and conclude by asking historians and legal scholars their opinions, with no guarantee that you will have a final and satisfactory answer.

 

Surely, even without that, you would quickly recognize that plural marriage for already married men would automatically breach mundane vows.  The question you must address is whether God is allowed to make other (additional) arrangements.  Indeed, when a Patriarch favored by God seeks to take a second wife in the Bible, do we know of any case when an accusation of "adultery" was levied?  In the midst of the "restoration of all things" Mormonism came under severe criticism for breaching all manner of accepted norms.  If that is what you are suggesting, then the Mormons are certainly guilty.  However, that still doesn't tell us what D&C 132 means, and it does not justify it being read out of context.

[Robert F. Smith]

is he here?

 

Do you know him?

 

Can you ask him?

I do not know him, but I have a great deal of respect for his work.

I doubt that he would waste his time here.  You can find his email address on his website, http://www.toddmcompton.com/ , about half-way down the page.  His PhD is from UCLA and he currently works for a law firm.

[inquiringmind]

I do not know him, but I have a great deal of respect for his work.

I doubt that he would waste his time here.  You can find his email address on his website, http://www.toddmcompton.com/ , about half-way down the page.  His PhD is from UCLA and he currently works for a law fi

Thank you.

[DonBradley]

InquiringMind,

 

You ask good questions. =)

 

Don

[djones]

No

[Tacenda]

 

What does D&C 132:43 mean?

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.43?lang=eng

Wouldn't every publicly married couple (before the wording of the marriage ceremony was changed) have been "under a vow" to keep themselves "wholly for each other, and from all others" during their mortal lives?

 

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/10/2/S00006-The_Prophet_Joseph_Smith_and_His_Plural_Wives.html

And wouldn't that make the lawful practice of polygamy impossible, if D&C 132:43 means anything?

Very confused now, please help.

 

I remember reading something about JS disavowing civil marriages, thus making it non adultery.  I'll have to find the quote. 

[The Nehor]

It is so when concubinage comes back as suggested by Presidents Woodruff and Snow that it will fall under the "vow" wording.

[inquiringmind]

I remember reading something about JS disavowing civil marriages, thus making it non adultery.  I'll have to find the quote. 

 

Please do if you can.

 

That might explain verse 43.

 

Thank you.

[Tacenda]

Please do if you can.

 

That might explain verse 43.

 

Thank you.

It was so long ago, not finding it.  Probably anti stuff.  But I don't think I imagined this.  Maybe it has to do with sealing in the temple for eternity vs. marrying for time only in a civil ceremony.  But will keep looking and get back if I find it.       

[TAO]

Inquiring, perhaps the vow was not to be with another woman... in other words... if he's covenanted not to be with another woman, and the Lord doesn't command him otherwise, and he goes and does it, he has committed adultery.  Dunno if that's the interpretation, but it's quite possible, nah?

[inquiringmind]

It was so long ago, not finding it.  Probably anti stuff.  But I don't think I imagined this.  Maybe it has to do with sealing in the temple for eternity vs. marrying for time only in a civil ceremony.  But will keep looking and get back if I find it.       

 

Thank you.

[inquiringmind]

Inquiring, perhaps the vow was not to be with another woman... in other words... if he's covenanted not to be with another woman...

The marriage vow contained in the 1835 LDS article on marriage reads as follows:

 

 

You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/10/2/S00006-The_Prophet_Joseph_Smith_and_His_Plural_Wives.html

 

The vows contained in the book of common prayer (and used by Episcopalians, and probably Methodists) are almost the same, as are the words used in the Catholic ceremony (and, I suspect, the civil ceremony), so (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) it would seem that every married American man in 1843 had taken a vow not to be with another woman.

 

That's the problem I see in understanding D&C 132:43.

Edited January 21, 2014 by inquiringmind

[SargentYork]

Could this be the answer?

 

 

Consent in marriage

Both before and after a man and a woman come together in holy matrimony (and since all marriage is ordained of God, including non-temple marriage, all matrimony is holy), the law of common consent applies. So, for example, if the couple enters marriage with vows of fidelity, meaning that they promise to abstain from loving (making love to) other people, they must keep their vows. It is the law of the Lord that all our vows and covenants and oaths be kept, for it is a sin to break a vow. Thus, a man must receive consent from his wife to marry a second wife and a woman must receive consent from her husband to marry another husband.

If they enter the marriage with no vows of abstinence and they decide they want more spouses and they receive consent from their current spouses, they may freely marry without sinning. If, on the other hand, they enter the marriage with vows of abstinence and they decide afterward that they want more spouses in their family, they can, with consent, release one another from their vows of abstinence and then consent to additional spouses. This also is not sin, for vows can be freely made and released, as long as the person to whom the vow was made is doing the releasing.

http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/tag/dc-132/

[Tacenda]

Could this be the answer?

http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/tag/dc-132/

What!? It sounds like a little husband and wife swapping to me.

[SargentYork]

What evidence is there that Joseph and Emma were married by a judge in New York?

 

Weren't commonlaw marriages common at the time, and isn't it possible that Joseph and Emma, and other couples who considered themselves married, weren't technically under any formal vows of fedelity, and couldn't that explain D&C 132:43?

 

Are there any historians here who can verify whether or not there's any reliable documentary evidence that Joseph and Emma were married in a civil ceremony in New York state (such as a marriage licence, marriage certificate, or anything like that)?

[Calm]

So if they had only been married in a religious ceremony, you wouldn't consider that formal vows?

[JLHPROF]

What evidence is there that Joseph and Emma were married by a judge in New York?

 

Weren't commonlaw marriages common at the time, and isn't it possible that Joseph and Emma, and other couples who considered themselves married, weren't technically under any formal vows of fedelity, and couldn't that explain D&C 132:43?

 

Are there any historians here who can verify whether or not there's any reliable documentary evidence that Joseph and Emma were married in a civil ceremony in New York state (such as a marriage licence, marriage certificate, or anything like that)?

 

Well, pretty much every biography states they eloped after Joseph was denied her father's blessing twice and were married by a justice of the peace in the next county.

I don't know what primary source the biographies draw that from, but I would assume it to be valid to be republished so many times.