Poly-What?, or, a Contemporary View of LDS Plural Marriage

**What are your intial reactions to these variations of polygamy?

The abstract idea of polygamy doesn’t bother me at all. The practical matters of who, when, and how are all-important. Alarm bells are ringing over the first story, because the church does not teach that particular practice and in fact would not allow such a “marriage” — celibate or otherwise — to occur in the temple, as it would be a marriage contrary to civil law. The mere fact that a couple would even propose such a thing is alarming, because they could be doing it only on their own initiative, which makes me wonder what other doctrinal variations might be cooking there.

The second scenario isn’t alarming at all. The church has in the past, and so far as I know does in the present, occasionally allow such posthumous sealing ordinances in individual cases.

**Would such people be subject to Church Discipline, if discovered?

Quite possibly yes in the first case, because they are proposing something not sanctioned by the church, and something that could in fact lead to more extreme proposals. (I’d probably say that counsel from a priesthood leader, rather than formal church discipline, is the likely first step, since it’s possible that their proposal was a genuine misunderstanding, correctable with proper teaching.)

The second one, absolutely not, because the young man would have to make his case through discussion with his bishop and however further up the line it would go. No temple sealer would seal a live person to a deceased person to whom he was not married in life just on the young man’s request.

**Is this practical (in the first example)? How would the woman break the marriage if she met someone? Would this lead to some physical expectation down the line?

Not practical in the first case because it is completely contrary to church practice. She could neither enter into a temple sealing nor break one on her own. The last question doesn’t arise because the church wouldn’t sanction the sealing in the first place.

The second would of course be practical if he received a recommend for his live sealing from the proper authority. He couldn’t arrange it on his own hook.

**In the second story, there is a strong sense to me that this would be barrier in his current relationship; how do other people feel about this idea? Is this a reasonable request?

It would be no different, in my mind, than if he had been sealed to this girlfriend as his wife while she was still alive, then been widowed and married again. Second spouses often have to deal with the fact of previous sealings. Whether it is a barrier or not depends on the character of the second spouse. It would not bother me in the slightest, personally.

“All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power…, are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. …If a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God” (D&C 132:7, 18).

That doesn’t seem to leave much room for DIY celestial polygamy.

Some years ago, I knew a man in his late 20s who had been engaged to a woman who died before they were married. They were posthumously sealed, and he was listed on church records as a widower, despite never having been legally married to anyone. He remained close to his in-laws. He said that if he ever married again, he expected to be with both in the next life.

“This reminded me of another conversation I had with a friend who had a girlfriend who was a significant influence on his life and lead him to serve a mission for the LDS Church. She died shortly after he arrived in the mission field. He felt that he wanted to marry this girl in the life to come so that he could offer her the highest blessings of the Celestial Kingdom. He was so convinced of this that he felt that he would expect any future wife to understand and accept this before they were married. He is currently married although I am unsure of how he feels about this now.”

The question is would the girl want to marry him? Maybe his concern was for nothing and she’s quite happy frolicking with all the men on the other side.

Unless the man is deluusional, we have in our ward a man who couldn’t marry his sweetheart in this life for an unknown reason. I have it confirmed from our patriarch that he has posthumly married her in the temple, and the sealing has been performed, therefore approved, by the Church.
Men and women of faith shouldn’t make a mockery of the fundamental principles of temple covenants. Errer humanum est, of course, and it is natural for human mind to wander the paths of many feelings, reasonings and ideas. But personal conclusions cannot overwrite the will of our Father.
Saying this, there are strange stories. I rmember a story in France (yes Aaron, you recognised me!), where, during a temple week in Frankfurt, a sister had a personal revelation that a specific man who was also attending the temple that week would be her husband. She claimed she had this vision. The problem is that this man was happily married to his wife and they were known to have an exceptionally healthy marriage. She had to approach this man and his wife (excuse me Brother, I know this is going to sound weird…) to tell them, and of course this was dismissed. She later recontacted this man, but he wasn’t interested. However, he himself got a similar vision, and then he was troubled. His wife developed cancer and rapidly died, and he ended up marrying the other one. So in some cases, it seems peole have revealed motive or special feelings that cannot be ignored. But I am sure that in DIY poligamy motives, the relevant authorities should keep an open mind for requests and I would expect them to seek the will of God in such matters. After all, new revelations have been given from time to time to dispell preconceived ideas widely held by members.
I always try to rememeber that ultimately, God’s love is the motive in his dealings with us. He can be solicited.

re 9: What a spectacular quote? I have never read that before. The only problem here is that Pres. Woodruff would be a little disappointed with the arrangement here because there was going to be no direct posterity from this relationship.

re 10: It was not my intention to make a mockery of temple covenants and so apologise if it seems like I have. In light of what you have said regarding the relationship of personal revelation adn the will of the Father etc. I think that the Church would be uncomfortable with people proceeding in these kinds of relationships, even if they felt they had revelation. The problem is because it is a DIY issue which I believe the Church would discourage. For example, if people want to financially support one family I could see the Church’s policy being pay your money to fast-offering and the Church will support them. I think this occurs because we tried these communal sharing programmes in the past and they did not work very well it seems. What I am suggesting, in a round-about sort of way, is that these relationships would be very heavily discouraged, i believe.

The second story for me is not as big an issue but in the sense of the relationship, but it was more an example of how this idea still permeates our marriage paradigm. I believe most members of the church, and this is pure speculation, see the after-life as polygamous. I just am not so sure that we really know what the after-life will be like and am surprised with jmb275 that others would be so sure??

Initial Impressions:

The people offering to support the woman financially and the man who wanted to tell everyone he dated about his “true” love are weird.

Impressions after thinking it over:

The people offering to support the woman financially and the man who wanted to tell everyone he dated about his “true” love are weird.

re 16: I have to disagree that it is weird. I think if you accept the polygamy celestial world view, which is pretty common in the UK, then these types of feelings and behaviours are not far away. Although I think they are problematic (primarily because I am not sure about the polygamy after-life thing) I actually think these variations are the product of our culture and ‘doctrine’.

re 14: I think a leader speaking to them is difficult. Upon what basis could he say anything other than what has been said here about it not being a good idea. Because there is no specific church sanctions on such activity there is no action or counsel apart that can defered to some higher authority apart from personal opinion. Also I see personal revelation coming into the picture. People would pray about it, i guess, and if they accpet would probably have felt it was the right thing to do.

re 15: I am not sure the Church will change the doctrine around polygamy that because I reckon that it holds that Plural marriage exists in the after-life. Thus we are left with this doctrinally ambiguous status that allows such developments to occcur.

On the second situation, this guy will grow up eventually. I would caution any of my female friends from marrying this guy because you can’t compete with an idealized, unconsummated relationship.

Kind of like the old LDS joke that has the speaker up at the podium talking about how we all fall short, then saying, “In fact, if there’s anyone in this congregation who’s achieved perfection in this life, I’d like him or her to stand up.” Much to his surprise, this one older brother gets to his feet. The speaker asks, “Excuse me, are you saying that you’re perfect?” The brother says, “Oh, no, I’m just standing up in proxy for my wife’s late husband.”

Oh… I get it (finally). This is about people who want to cling to what the Latter-day Saint leaders said over 100 years ago instead of what’s actively taught today. And, without clear guidelines from today’s leaders, people make stuff up, like “financial plural marriage” or “making reservations for plural marriage as soon as we’re allowed to do it.”

I liken this to the often-talked-about belief in the 1970s among some fellow ward members which said that, in the near future, all Latter-day Saints would be ordered to gather to Missouri. They also seemed to believe we’d be forced to walk there (like the Mormon pioneers) because there wouldn’t be any gasoline left… or some such thing which may-or-may-not have been preached by some general authority many decades ago but isn’t mentioned anymore.

In my experience, anyone I’ve known in the past 25 years who’s speculated about plural marriage in the next life did not seem to be interested in building up the Kingdom of God or having numerous, righteous descendants or any of the other noble objectives I assign to 19th Century Mormons. Instead, my contemporaries who are fascinated with the idea of becoming polygamists only seem interested in a sort of “authorized promiscuity.” I find the whole discussion very distasteful as a result.

I’d love to have heard the conversation on the day when Brigham Young and Gordon B. Hinckley got together in the afterlife to discuss the “doctrine” of polygamy.

The 19th Century Mormons had an established system for practicing plural marriage whereas the story at the top of this discussion appears to involve people who are making up their own system. That, to me, is a giant red flag. Plus, the contemporary story seems to involve people trying to make deals which will carry into the next life. In a gospel sense, they clearly don’t have the authority to make deals like that. So it’s clear to me that they don’t understand the principle that they’re attempting to follow.

The supposed argument between Brigham Young and Gordon B. Hinckley might have something to do with Brigham Young’s assertion that plural marriage was essential to salvation while Gordon B. Hinckley said, on national television, that it’s not doctrinal. Personally, I’d love to watch a debate between the two of them. Personally, I believe that the scriptures would trump Brother Brigham on this matter and I still believe that, while allowable, plural marriage was and always will be the exception to the standard.

Of course I don’t know if the couple in the first story had sexual motives. I don’t know them. What I said was that everyone whom I’ve known who was fascinated with the idea of eventually becoming a polygamist seemed to have a sexual motive. My experience advises my assumptions.

The notion that there wasn’t a clear, consistent practice of polygamy in the 19th Century only bolsters the fact (which is surprising to most people) that only a small percentage of LDS men were ever authorized to have plural wives. But we’re more than 100 years past that now. The church is very consistent now. And that story at the top of this page is just kinda creepy. The proposal would hurt both the single mother’s ability to progress in this life and her children’s ability to belong to a normal family. Niether the church nor common sense would approve.

This reminds me of pointless discussions between native, South American missionaries and the born-in-the-church missionaries from the United States. The topic: Is it better to know first-hand the cleansing power of repentance or to never have sinned? The idea was that most of the born-in-the-church missionaries didn’t have to repent of anything “serious” before becoming missionaries while the South Americans may have had to overcome lots of sins before joining the church.

To me, the discussion was pointless. For those who wanted to debate the issue, it seemed that one’s personal experience was assumed to be the better way. So they thought that everyone else would be better off if they’d lived life the same way as themselves. Was Brigham Young’s inclined to the same thought process? I wouldn’t be surprised.

I find it interesting that so many of us can dismiss what Brigham Young said about racial issues or the “Adam-God Theory” but we continue to be distressed over his assertion that plural marriage is essential. As far as I can tell, none of those ideas is backed up by scripture.

I hear you, Jo, but your example grates on me. As far as I’m concerned, Jacob 2:30 sums up what happened in 19th Century Mormonism. Relationships authorized by God are a far cry from sexual initiation into a gang.

I would need a more complete quote from Joseph F. Smith to conclude that “plural marriage” and “celestial marriage” meant the same thing. Even the quote you included says something about “the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness.” Under current church policy and the current commandments from God (using Jacob 2:27-30 as a guide) I haven’t been given the ability to live the principle of plural marriage. So there’s no conflict between what I’m doing and what Joseph F. Smith testified that I should do.

Greg, I understand your frustration. How do we understand the apostles attitudes toward polygamy, which even then was considered socially inappropriate in American politics. Reed Smoot faced expulsion from the U.S. Senate due to the attitudes toward the Church and the aftermath of polygamy. There was significant discussion in that era regarding the nation’s long standing “Mormon problem”.
How the “Mormon problem” was worked out in this country during these early years influenced the politics of how America both tolerates and limits religious organizations.
Public school have similar difficulty working with subcultures in America, as we are required to accept that children from these subcultures (even gangs) which operate by a different set of rules and practices than traditional mainstream attitudes. Comparing modern subcultures with what was considered in the late 1800′s and early 1900′s another subculture seemed reasonable when discussing the context of sexual politics and sexual practice in that group.
I like to understand behavior by reframing it in terms of “playground politics” as it tends to strip the complexity from the situation, as behaviorally, children operate in simpler ways. This is similar to using a parable to explain a more complicated situation and it is a practice common in counseling. Why did it grate on you, as Joseph F. Smith’s view are well established?