D&c 132 References For Living Polyandry

[tonie]

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?

 

Section 132:41

 

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

[webbles]

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 (?)

The relationship between Edmund Richardson, Mary Ann Darrow, and Frederick Walter Cox might be considered a polyandrous relationship.  Edmund and Mary Ann were married before they entered Utah and were converted.  Because of the LDS teachings, they desired to have more posterity but Edmund had become a eunuch because of a previous religion.  So per Brigham Young's suggestion, they divorced and Mary Ann married Frederick Walter Cox.  She had two more sons from that marriage.  Then, Mary Ann and Frederick were divorced and she remarried Edmund.  They were then sealed together along with their two previous children and these two new sons.  This might not fit your polyandry definition because she was technically never married to two husbands at the same time nor was she sealed to Edmund while she was married to Frederick.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

Polygamy? Polyandry? Puts those words into the same sentence along with "defending traditional marraige".

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

I would agree wholeheartedly that a wife is not her husband's property. I do, however, in common language refer to my wife as exactly that. "my wife". If my wife were to come to me and say she wanted to take a second husband, as well as me, I would not make any claims of ownership, merely that if that was her choice, then count me out.

My wife has stated she would react the same way. Regardless of the issue of sex or not, if I wanted to share our household with another woman, as well as my wife, my wife would be out the door in the blink of an eye.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It's not a statement of ownership (despite what the old testament says). It is a statement of will, of wanting to share life together. Nowhere in our marriage vows to each other did we include an escape clause or permission clausul to bringing in more people to our union. Personally, my wife and I did not include in our vows any words of "obey". Did you include that word?

I chose my wife and she chose me. If she were to choose to live with someone else, or if I were to choose to live with someone else, the present union between me and my wife would be over.

[Gray]

 

Section 132:41

 

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

 

Yes, I think that's a reference to polyandry. 

[ALarson]

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.

I think it's interesting that you would be so understanding if your wife came to you and said that she knew God wanted her to leave you (or remain married to you) and marry another man.  

 

Do you have children?  They are the ones who a divorce can be devastating for and that's who I immediately think of when I imagine this scenario happening with my wife.  I don't think our kids would be very understanding about it.

 

I also wonder how confusing things were for the children back in the early days of the church when polygamy and polyandry were practiced.  I know it was more common to see families in this situation of course.  But I would think it was confusing for Zina's kids.  To know that their Mom's legal husband was their physical Father, but she was now married to and living with Brigham Young, but that they would be Joseph Smith's child in the eternities?  Or that your Mom's legal husband wasn't your Dad and Brigham Young was your physical Father, but you'd be Joseph Smith's after this life?  I wonder how that was for them? 

Edited April 16, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Polygamy? Polyandry? Puts those words into the same sentence along with "defending traditional marraige".

It seems the only defense that I've seen on here lately for either polygamy or polyandry is that God commanded them and that living these helped grow and strengthen the church.  I don't believe any of those are the truth although I do believe that there were early saints who made polygamy work for them.  

Edited April 16, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Yes, I think that's a reference to polyandry.

 

Really? It seems like a stretch but more plausible than some I've heard.

"41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man areceiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy banointing, she hath committed cadultery and shall be destroyed.

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has acommitted adultery.

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

What role does the "vow" play and what is the "vow".

And if she's not in the new and everlasting covenant (sealed) and then teakes another husband she has committed adultery, how does that explain the polyandrous relationship Joseph had with his wives that were not previously sealed? The whole thing is a mess and at very best extremely unclear.

[ALarson]

The relationship between Edmund Richardson, Mary Ann Darrow, and Frederick Walter Cox might be considered a polyandrous relationship.  Edmund and Mary Ann were married before they entered Utah and were converted.  Because of the LDS teachings, they desired to have more posterity but Edmund had become a eunuch because of a previous religion.  So per Brigham Young's suggestion, they divorced and Mary Ann married Frederick Walter Cox.  She had two more sons from that marriage.  Then, Mary Ann and Frederick were divorced and she remarried Edmund.  They were then sealed together along with their two previous children and these two new sons.  This might not fit your polyandry definition because she was technically never married to two husbands at the same time nor was she sealed to Edmund while she was married to Frederick.

Just saw this.  I'd never heard of these members before.  What an interesting story and one that I'll read up on.  Thanks, webbles for posting about them!

[JLHPROF]

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

 

At this moment in time.  It has not always been so, nor will it always be so.  Despite claims about "traditional" marriage and that "plural marriage" was the exception, polygamy has been an accepted part of societies about as much/as long as monogamy.

 

And since we believe in eternal marriage, there will be an awful lot of polygamy going on in the Celestial Kingdom.  We might want to adjust our thinking on the "one man/one woman thing" before we get there.

 

 

Nowhere in our marriage vows to each other did we include an escape clause or permission clausul to bringing in more people to our union. Personally, my wife and I did not include in our vows any words of "obey". Did you include that word?

 

My marriage vows were made over an altar in a temple of God.  They include a covenant to live "all the rites and ordinances relating to marriage".  Still trying to figure out what specific marriage rites and ordinances take place between husband and wives AFTER the sealing.  Kind of important since I covenanted to live them at some point. 

 

And let's not get the feminists started on the "inequality" of genders inherent in the sealing ceremony...

Edited April 16, 2015 by JLHPROF

[bcuzbcuz]

At this moment in time.  It has not always been so, nor will it always be so.  Despite claims about "traditional" marriage and that "plural marriage" was the exception, polygamy has been an accepted part of societies about as much/as long as monogamy.

 

And since we believe in eternal marriage, there will be an awful lot of polygamy going on in the Celestial Kingdom.  We might want to adjust our thinking on the "one man/one woman thing" before we get there.

 

 

My marriage vows were made over an altar in a temple of God.  They include a covenant to live "all the rites and ordinances relating to marriage".  Still trying to figure out what specific marriage rites and ordinances take place between husband and wives AFTER the sealing.  Kind of important since I covenanted to live them at some point. 

 

And let's not get the feminists started on the "inequality" of genders inherent in the sealing ceremony...

I don't pretend to live my marriage on "What might be". And unless my wife gets a lobotomy, no commandments, by anyone, prophet or not, will convince her that I get to have two or more wives. Nor would I ever ask her to, regardless of who says it's OK. And I think it is very important to remember, Polygamy is against the law and against church policy. Anyone who plays the mind game of "preparing themselves or their partner" for "the return of polygamy" is guilty of "grooming".

[JLHPROF]

I don't pretend to live my marriage on "What might be". And unless my wife gets a lobotomy, no commandments, by anyone, prophet or not, will convince her that I get to have two or more wives. Nor would I ever ask her to, regardless of who says it's OK.

Does that include God himself?

 

 

And I think it is very important to remember, Polygamy is against the law and against church policy. Anyone who plays the mind game of "preparing themselves or their partner" for "the return of polygamy" is guilty of "grooming".

 

:rofl:    - That's funny.  We're just talking pure application of reason here based on gospel principles.  Not some sinister plot to corrupt our spouses.

[Thinking]

Despite claims about "traditional" marriage and that "plural marriage" was the exception, polygamy has been an accepted part of societies about as much/as long as monogamy.

 

Being an accepted part of a society does not validate something. The list is long of things that are accepted by societies that LDS would not accept.

[JLHPROF]

Being an accepted part of a society does not validate something. The list is long of things that are accepted by societies that LDS would not accept.

 

True, but we are talking "traditional" vs "unusual" here.  I am merely stating that polygamy is no less traditional than monogamy (at least in my opinion and based on what little I know of world history).

[bcuzbcuz]

True, but we are talking "traditional" vs "unusual" here.  I am merely stating that polygamy is no less traditional than monogamy (at least in my opinion and based on what little I know of world history).

Your statement in parentheses pretty well negates everything you state.

Putting that aside, even if all my neighbours practice polygamy doesn't mean that I will find acceptable or excuse such a practice for myself. It's not a matter of numbers, majority or minority. Polygamy is a disgusting practice.

[Gray]

 

 

Really? It seems like a stretch but more plausible than some I've heard.

"41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man areceiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy banointing, she hath committed cadultery and shall be destroyed.

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has acommitted adultery.

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

What role does the "vow" play and what is the "vow".

And if she's not in the new and everlasting covenant (sealed) and then teakes another husband she has committed adultery, how does that explain the polyandrous relationship Joseph had with his wives that were not previously sealed? The whole thing is a mess and at very best extremely unclear.

 

 

 

It's tough to parse out because the language is so oblique (seeming to try to avoid saying directly what it is saying). 

 

 

"if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery"

 

The corollary to this is if the woman HAS been appointed the "holy anointing" and she is with another man, then she hasn't committed adultery. 

[Tacenda]

It's tough to parse out because the language is so oblique (seeming to try to avoid saying directly what it is saying). 

 

 

"if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery"

 

The corollary to this is if the woman HAS been appointed the "holy anointing" and she is with another man, then she hasn't committed adultery. 

I don't know how they were able to be with others like this, since there was probably STD's back then too.  It just seems so wrong, on so many levels.  

[ALarson]

It's tough to parse out because the language is so oblique (seeming to try to avoid saying directly what it is saying). 

 

 

"if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery"

 

The corollary to this is if the woman HAS been appointed the "holy anointing" and she is with another man, then she hasn't committed adultery. 

If you read the entire scripture (v. 41), it states that if this woman has entered with another man "in the new and everlasting covenant" prior to being with another man....:  

 

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.  

  

So, were any of the women who entered a polyandrous marriage with Joseph Smith already married to another man "in the new and everlasting covenant"?

 

We know that Brigham Young had polyandrous marriages to women who'd been sealed to Joseph Smith previously ("in the new and everlasting covenant").  But then, one can claim that she was appointed to him by the holy anointing I guess.

[JLHPROF]

Putting that aside, even if all my neighbours practice polygamy doesn't mean that I will find acceptable or excuse such a practice for myself. It's not a matter of numbers, majority or minority.

 

That argument works both ways.

People like yourself who don't like/approve of polygamy often downplay its practice.  Just because only XYZ percent of members ever lived it doesn't make it less acceptable.  Just because monogamy is the current norm and practiced by a majority doesn't make it the more acceptable marriage format.  Yet these arguments are used against polygamy too.

As you say, numbers don't matter.  Only God's instruction matters.

[ALarson]

That argument works both ways.

People like yourself who don't like/approve of polygamy often downplay its practice.  Just because only XYZ percent of members ever lived it doesn't make it less acceptable.  Just because monogamy is the current norm and practiced by a majority doesn't make it the more acceptable marriage format.  Yet these arguments are used against polygamy too.

As you say, numbers don't matter.  Only God's instruction matters.

I actually agree with what you wrote above, JLHPROF.  I have no issue with anyone who wants to live polygamy even today if it's between consenting adults and no one is getting hurt.  I don't agree with marrying underage girls, etc.  

 

When you say "Only God's instruction matters", I think that's where people differ on here.  I do not believe that God has ever commanded anyone to live polygamy or polyandry.  

[Gray]

If you read the entire scripture (v. 41), it states that if this woman has entered with another man "in the new and everlasting covenant" prior to being with another man....:  

 

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.  

  

So, were any of the women who entered a polyandrous marriage with Joseph Smith already married to another man "in the new and everlasting covenant"?

 

We know that Brigham Young had polyandrous marriages to women who'd been sealed to Joseph Smith previously ("in the new and everlasting covenant").  But then, one can claim that she was appointed to him by the holy anointing I guess.

 

Honestly I find the language in D&C 132 incredibly hard to follow. It hints rather than explains. 

[ALarson]

Honestly I find the language in D&C 132 incredibly hard to follow. It hints rather than explains. 

This.  

 

I have found that very few active members have even read D&C 132 in its entirety.  Most jump around in that section and just read certain verses (when they teach lessons or speak).  

[JLHPROF]

When you say "Only God's instruction matters", I think that's where people differ on here.  I do not believe that God has ever commanded anyone to live polygamy or polyandry.  

 

Then you would have no other choice than to label Joseph Smith an adulterer and by extension dismiss any revelation of doctrine proclaimed by him after the unrepentant adulterous act (which would include the temple ordinances).

 

You would also have no other option than to consider Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, and all the apostles who served under them till about 1904 to be adulterers and therefore not God's servants.

 

In short, if you believe polygamy was not from God it can be nothing else but adultery, and if it is adultery then the Church has no authority as all the prophets would have lost their calling for adultery.  They would be a Church of King Davids.

Edited April 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[bcuzbcuz]

That argument works both ways.

People like yourself who don't like/approve of polygamy often downplay its practice.  Just because only XYZ percent of members ever lived it doesn't make it less acceptable.  Just because monogamy is the current norm and practiced by a majority doesn't make it the more acceptable marriage format.  Yet these arguments are used against polygamy too.

As you say, numbers don't matter.  Only God's instruction matters.

When was the last time you heard any presentation during general conference extolling the virtues of polygamy or polyandry? When have you heard or read anything from the pulpit expressing the same style of longing towards polygamy that you express? What would be the reaction from the bishopric or stake presidency if someone spoke from the pulpit about promolgating the idea of polygamy to family members or other saints?

[ALarson]

Then you would have no other choice than to label Joseph Smith an adulterer and by extension dismiss any revelation of doctrine proclaimed by him after the unrepentant adulterous act (which would include the temple ordinances).

 

You would also have no other option than to consider Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, and all the apostles who served under them till about 1904 to be adulterers and therefore not God's servants.

 

In short, if you believe polygamy was not from God it can be nothing else but adultery, and if it is adultery then the Church has no authority as all the prophets would have lost their calling for adultery.  They would be a Church of King Davids.

I believe that Joseph Smith was just a man.  Sometimes he made good choices and sometimes he didn't.  I believe he made mistakes and I believe that introducing polygamy was a huge mistake.  As far as the others you named above, I think they believed in Joseph Smith and believed him when he stated that polygamy came from God.