Willard Richards' Documentation of a Unique Independent Marriage Ordinance

[Jaydes]

A snippet from the Journal of Willard Richards. At the time he was away on a trip for three days, and there was no nearby temple to be sealed in. After he returned to the settlement, he never did end up feeling any need to re-solemnize this in the temple.

 

 

"At 10. P.M  took Alice Longstroth by the hand and of our own free will and and accord mutually acknowledge each other husband and wife, in a covenant not to be broken in time or eternity, for time & all eternity, to all intents & purposes as though the seal of the covenant has been placed upon us, for time & all eternity to call upon God, & all the Holy angels - & Sarah Longstroth - , to witness the same."

[JLHPROF]

This would be considered a common law marriage or perhaps concubinage, not a sealing.

Apostle Abraham H. Cannon noted in his 5 April 1894 diary that both George Q. Cannon and Wilford Woodruff approved of such arrangements. “I believe in concubinage,” George Q. is recorded as saying, “or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married.” Woodruff responded to Cannon’s suggestion, “If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it.”

She was actually married and sealed to someone else while Willard lived, indicating she probably didn't consider it binding.

[Jaydes]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This would be considered a common law marriage or perhaps concubinage, not a sealing.

Apostle Abraham H. Cannon noted in his 5 April 1894 diary that both George Q. Cannon and Wilford Woodruff approved of such arrangements. “I believe in concubinage,” George Q. is recorded as saying, “or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married.” Woodruff responded to Cannon’s suggestion, “If men enter into some practice of this character to raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it.”

She was actually married and sealed to someone else while Willard lived, indicating she probably didn't consider it binding.

It is certainly reminiscent of a common law marriage.

 

However to suggest it was not at the very least believed to be a sealing seems at odds with a relevant part of it; " in a covenant not to be broken in time or eternity, for time & all eternity, to all intents & purposes as though the seal of the covenant has been placed upon us, for time & all eternity"

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Jaydes said:

It is certainly reminiscent of a common law marriage.

 

However to suggest it was not at the very least believed to be a sealing seems at odds with a relevant part of it; " in a covenant not to be broken in time or eternity, for time & all eternity, to all intents & purposes as though the seal of the covenant has been placed upon us, for time & all eternity"

D&C 132:7 would seem to apply.

[sunstoned]

24 minutes ago, Jaydes said:

It is certainly reminiscent of a common law marriage.

 

However to suggest it was not at the very least believed to be a sealing seems at odds with a relevant part of it; " in a covenant not to be broken in time or eternity, for time & all eternity, to all intents & purposes as though the seal of the covenant has been placed upon us, for time & all eternity"

Except he was already married.  So its more like a concubine.  The more I learn about polygamy, the more disgusting it seems. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by sunstoned

[Jaydes]

12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Except he was already married.  So its more like a concubine.  The more I learn about polygamy, the more disgusting it seems. 

Aye, it certainly was a disgusting practice.

 

I personally don't think this union had any marital efficacy either, but it is interesting such an ordinance was considered to exist.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Jaydes