D&c 132 References For Living Polyandry

[ALarson]

I asked this question on the other thread regarding how Joseph Smith lived polyandry:

 

"Where is Section 132 does it state polyandry of this sort is righteous and commanded by God?"

 

 

Scott Lloyd provided a link for me to the Fair Mormon Answers website where polyandry is discussed, but this is the reference given there:

 

 

What does the Doctrine and Covenants say on this subject?

 

Doctrine and Covenants 132:63 states,

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

 

To me this seems to argue against polyandry.

 

Are there any other references in D&C 132 addressing polyandry?

Edited April 15, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

There are none that directly reference polyandry.

 

You have to understand the principles of marriage that led to supposed "polyandry".

These include:

The validity of non-eternal marriages.

The difference between eternal and temporal marriage.

The significance of higher ordinances in marriage.

 

D&C 132 has reference/allusion to these but doesn't spell everything out.

[ALarson]

There are none that directly reference polyandry.

 

You have to understand the principles of marriage that led to supposed "polyandry".

These include:

The validity of non-eternal marriages.

The difference between eternal and temporal marriage.

The significance of higher ordinances in marriage.

 

D&C 132 has reference/allusion to these but doesn't spell everything out.

Thanks.  I have to believe this is why polyandry is a huge issue for members who are just learning about it.

 

How do these pertain to Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages to women who were already sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity?  I struggle with finding any reason why he would need to marry them especially when some were married to active members of the church.  

[carbon dioxide]

I asked this question on the other thread regarding how Joseph Smith lived polyandry:

 

 

Scott Lloyd provided a link for me to the Fair Mormon Answers website where polyandry is discussed, but this is the reference given there:

 

 

To me this seems to argue against polyandry.

 

Are there any other references in D&C 132 addressing polyandry?

I would add that marriage and sex are not the same thing.  Sex is required for adultery.  If one engages in polyandry and no sex occurs, there is no adultery. 

[cinepro]

I would add that marriage and sex are not the same thing.  Sex is required for adultery.  If one engages in polyandry and no sex occurs, there is no adultery. 

 

But the reason for the marriage is to have kids.  Sex is required to have kids (or it was in the 1840s):

 

for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment

[ALarson]

I would add that marriage and sex are not the same thing.  Sex is required for adultery.  If one engages in polyandry and no sex occurs, there is no adultery. 

I really don't want to get into who Joseph had marital relationships.  It appears he did with some and there were others where he didn't.

 

However, we do know that Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages involved sex because at least one of them (Zina) had his daughter.  So did Zina commit adultery?

[JLHPROF]

Thanks.  I have to believe this is why polyandry is a huge issue for members who are just learning about it.

 

How do these pertain to Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages to women who were already sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity?  I struggle with finding any reason why he would need to marry them especially when some were married to active members of the church.  

 

Brigham married Joseph's wives AFTER his death so they are not polyandrous.  He married them for time, and in some cases, raised children on Joseph's behalf.  This principle was established during the prophet's lifetime when Hyrum married Mercy Thompson (whose husband died) and covenanted to raise children with her and turn them over to the deceased husband.

We don't have a verbatim record of Brigham's marriages for time but I would wager that they included the same covenant.

 

 

The validity of non-eternal marriages.

Eleanor J. McLean married Parley P. Pratt in polygamy while still married to Hector McLean, although she was separated from him. When asked if she had divorced McLean before she married Pratt, she answered: “No, the sectarian priests have no power from God to marry; and a so called marriage ceremony performed by them is no marriage at all; no divorce was needed… . Stephen Pratt, “The Last Days of Parley P. Pratt,” Brigham Young University Studies (1975): 20.

 

The difference between eternal and temporal marriage.

 

The time was appointed, with the consent of all parties, and your father sealed me to your uncle Hyrum for time, in my sister's room, with a covenant to deliver me up in the morning of the resurrection to Robert Blaskel Thompson, with whatever offspring should be the result of that union, at the same time counseling your uncle to build a room for me and move me over as soon as convenient, which he did, and I remained there as a wife the same as my sister to the day of his death.... MERCY R. THOMPSON." (Andrew Jenson, The Historical Record 6 [salt Lake City, Utah, May 1887]: 229)

 

 

The significance of higher ordinances in marriage.

 

There was another way in which a woman could leave a man—if the woman preferred a man higher in authority and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up. There is no bill of divorce required, in [this] case it is right in the sight of God. - Brigham Young ,Conference Reports, 8 Oct. 1861

 

We don't have to agree with them, but we have to understand the doctrinal viewpoint and principle they were operating under.

THEN we can go back to D&C 132 and play "spot the hint" for these principles.

[JLHPROF]

So did Zina commit adultery?

 

How could she?  Brigham was her only living spouse at the time.  And any children they had would belong to her eternal companion, Joseph Smith.

[ALarson]

How could she?  Brigham was her only living spouse at the time.  And any children they had would belong to her eternal companion, Joseph Smith.

She was still married to Henry when she married Brigham.

[ALarson]

Brigham married Joseph's wives AFTER his death so they are not polyandrous.

Brigham had at least 8 marriages that were polyandrous, not just the one with Zina.

[canard78]

I would add that marriage and sex are not the same thing. Sex is required for adultery. If one engages in polyandry and no sex occurs, there is no adultery.

So if Mrs Carbon Dioxide went off and got married/sealed to someone else (meaning any children born to you as father would be sealed to the other man) you'd be totally fine with it and not feel she's been unfaithful to marriage vows as long as no sex had occurred?

[canard78]

How could she? Brigham was her only living spouse at the time. And any children they had would belong to her eternal companion, Joseph Smith.

So she married Henry Jacobs in March 1841

Then got pregnant pretty much immediately.

She married Joseph in Oct 1841 (7 months pregnant).

Then (re)sealed for eternity to Joseph with Brigham as proxy in 1844 (before also being sealed to Brigham for time).

She then got pregnant again with Henry in 1845 before Henry was sent away in 1846.

She had a daughter with Brigham in 1850.

It's all fine though, right. That's exactly what revelation told them to do... Wasn't it?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

So she married Henry Jacobs in March 1841

Then got pregnant pretty much immediately.

She married Joseph in Oct 1841 (7 months pregnant).

Then (re)sealed for eternity to Joseph with Brigham as proxy in 1844 (before also being sealed to Brigham for time).

She then got pregnant again with Henry in 1845 before Henry was sent away in 1846.

She had a daughter with Brigham in 1850.

It's all fine though, right. That's exactly what revelation told them to do... Wasn't it?

 

Now I'm just waiting for a "God's ways are not our ways" kind of comment.

[carbon dioxide]

But the reason for the marriage is to have kids.  Sex is required to have kids (or it was in the 1840s):

Where are the kids?  What kids resulted in those marriages?

[carbon dioxide]

So if Mrs Carbon Dioxide went off and got married/sealed to someone else (meaning any children born to you as father would be sealed to the other man) you'd be totally fine with it and not feel she's been unfaithful to marriage vows as long as no sex had occurred?

Yes I would be fine with it.  My wife is not my property.  She is an agent unto herself and if God is ok with it, who am I to complain? 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Yes I would be fine with it.  My wife is not my property.  She is an agent unto herself and if God is ok with it, who am I to complain?

 

Who are you to complain?

Her HUSBAND.

[canard78]

Yes I would be fine with it. My wife is not my property. She is an agent unto herself and if God is ok with it, who am I to complain?

You would be absolutely fine if your wife married another man behind your back?

The force is strong with this one...

[The Nehor]

You would be absolutely fine if your wife married another man behind your back?

The force is strong with this one...

I would prefer they marry them with my knowledge and consent (which I would give).

[carbon dioxide]

You would be absolutely fine if your wife married another man behind your back?

The force is strong with this one...

Marriage is a contract, covenant, or priesthood ordinance.  If I love my wife and she decides she wants to make a contract with someone else but still stays with me, how is that a loss on me?  She is happy and I will remain happy.  I believe most of the cases in regards to Joseph they were aware of it anyway.  Some were present when Joseph was sealed to the women.  They must have not thought it was that big of a deal. I believe a lot of us who understood everything that was going on probably would not think it was a big deal if we knew all the facts.  But since we don't know all the facts, it is easier to imagine something sinister or bad was going on. 

[ALarson]

Does anyone know if there were others who practiced polyandry in the early days of the church?  (I know of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Parley P. Pratt.)

[JLHPROF]

Does anyone know if there were others who practiced polyandry in the early days of the church?  (I know of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Parley P. Pratt.)

 

How do you define "polyandry"?  Two living husbands?  Or are you including when one is dead?

[ALarson]

How do you define "polyandry"?  Two living husbands?  Or are you including when one is dead?

Good question and I should have been more specific.  I was referring to having two living husbands at the same time (as in one legal husband and then agreeing to be sealed or "married" to another living man).  Hope that's more clear (?)

Edited April 15, 2015 by ALarson

[Senator]

Marriage is a contract, covenant, or priesthood ordinance.  If I love my wife and she decides she wants to make a contract with someone else but still stays with me, how is that a loss on me? 

 

Whoa, whoa back up the truck there Mr. C02.

 

Explain this again??

[carbon dioxide]

Whoa, whoa back up the truck there Mr. C02.

 

Explain this again??

BEEP, BEEP, BEEP,  Backing the truck up.

 

My point is my wife is not my property.  I find that I am happy when she is happy.  When she is not happy, I am not happy.  That usually is how it goes.  I am responding to a hypothetical.  If a situation occurred where God asked my wife to be sealed to another man and my wife was ok with it, I would be ok with it as well.  I know that God will bless me for my faithfulness.  I am looking at the long view of things.  Not the selfish views that many would have.  They see their spouse as "theirs" They suddenly own their spouse in some way.  I don't see it to be the case.  To me sex and marriage are separate issues.  One can be married or sealed without having sex and one can have sex without being married.  All marriage does is present the situation where sex does become allowable but it is not required.

 

Hope that helps a little of where I am coming from.

[SmileyMcGee]

Yes I would be fine with it. My wife is not my property. She is an agent unto herself and if God is ok with it, who am I to complain?

You may not complain outloud, but I would imagine you love your spouse enough to have a difficult time with such a situation, which would be perfectly natural...but of course this is just my opinion

Edited April 16, 2015 by SmileyMcGee