The continuation of plural marriage legit?

[aquabatix]

I was doing some research about the origin of plural (or “celestial”) marriage in the Mormon church. I wondered how some would think that the “revelation” to stop plural marriage was not one to be followed when other “continued revelations” were acceptable.

When the territory that would later become the state of Utah was in line to become a state, one of the only issues holding up this process was the practice of polygamy. In response to this, and also the Edmunds-Tucker Act, in 1890, church president Wilford Woodruff would issue what would become known as the “Manifesto.” It would state:

“Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I heareby declare my intention to submit to those laws, to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.”

“And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”

Hence the LDS church would not sanction any new plural marriages. (sort of, because there was a small period where more were still done, but the practice stopped.) BUT, as with many churches, when a new direction is proposed by the leaders, some split away. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (FLDS) are one of many splinter groups that would break away and continue the practice of “celestial” marriage. They find the justification for this in what the president/prophet before Woodruff had said.

In 1886, president John Taylor, who was in hiding because of the battles and turmoil going on with the government forcefully attempting to ban polygamy, would issue a different revelation that instructed for the continual perpetuation of “celestial” marriage.

“. . . for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.”

“Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I HAVE NOT REVOKED THIS LAW, NOR WILL I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory MUST obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.”

This revelation would be denied by the church and subsequently lost and no longer in the archives of the church.(a topic for another thread)

At any rate, my question for discussion is this: Since many of the early fundamentalist practitioners of polygamy continued their practice in Mexico and Canada at first before returning to the United States, wouldn’t their belief only be a matter of breaking civil law and not church law because the revelation was never admitted to be wrong, simply breaking the law.

In this vein, this could be seen as a split due to views of apostacy much like the Orthodox Church’s split with the Catholic Church. Both view they have a true line of authority and the other side broke theirs.

I wonder how this is viewed by today’s practicing Mormons? Is it taught that plural marriage is wrong and was divinely mandated to cease (hence renouncing the prior mandates) or something that is temporarily removed from only places that do not allow it? Could one enter into a plural marriage in the LDS church if the location where the person lived allowed it legally?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I just reread the Official Declaration and I don’t see anything that limits the manifesto strictly to “the Saints within the US”, so I think the polygamist LDS in Canada and Mexico post-manifesto were breaking a directive by the Church and so had lost any priesthood authority they might have had. I’d double check this assumption with an LDS History buff like ParkerD. This is similar to a Catholic Bishop ordaining other Bishops without approval of the Holy See. There is nothing in Catholic theology or in Catholic dogma prohibiting Bishops from ordaining other Bishops, but doing so without Vatican approval violates Canon Law.

As far as authority within the LDS Church is concerned, the nature of the beast is quite different than authority within Catholic/Orthodox communions. The LDS hierarchy is set up in such a way that it is truly pyramidal. One’s priesthood authority does not exist in a vacuum for the LDS, rather it relies on continual authority from the upper-ups. Without the First Presidency, there is no “legitimate authority”, so it’s sort of impossible to have a true schism within an LDS framework. Furthermore, even if the LDS had some kind of concept such as Apostolic Succession, where a particular bishop’s authority (or in the LDS case, a Stake President) depends only on apostolic continuity and is independent of said bishop’s relationships with other bishops, all of the “Fundamentalist Mormon” branches that I know of actually broke away from the LDS Church decades after the manifesto. This would be similar to a Catholic diocese that is currently in communion with the Catholic Church deciding to dismiss the validity of Vatican II, 40 years after the fact.

Intriguing post, by the way.

 

[aquabatix]

The piece of the manifesto I was referring to that limitted the declaration to the US was the part that says to “obey the laws of the land.” If they were to go outside the US territory into Mexican or Canadian lands, they could claim ignorance as to the disposition of those countries toward polygamy. Perhaps there was no law about it at any rate, I’ll have to look into it.

Also, sites such as www.fldstruth.com list the succession of their presidents down to Warren Jeffs. It hops from Taylor (whom the LDS accept as well) to one of his apostles instead of Woodruff. In this way their pyramid hierarchy is still intact.this belief especially brought me to the idea of Mormon schism.

 

[aquabatix]

One more thing as well, it is true that the separation did not take place until decades after the manifesto because many plural marriages were still being performed until well after the turn of the century. This led to a second manifesto by Joseph F Smith, the president at the time. So incidently, the hierarchy from Woodruff til then would be viewed as null and void anyways.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Yes, but that all seems like filling in the dots far after the fact, though. The last LDS First President the FLDS recognize is President Taylor, yet the organization wasn’t founded until 1932. This is a stark break in how the LDS had been operating succession since Brigham Young succeeded Joseph Smith Jr. Where’s the Senior Apostle succeeding Taylor? How can they dismiss away the wide array of excommunications between 1904 and 1932? I still think you (and possibly the FLDS themselves) are incorrectly judging the validity of the FLDS through a non-Mormon lens of ecclesiology.

 

[Marie5890]

I do hear what you are saying and you make an interesting point.

However I have to tell you that even though the main LDS church not longer practices polygamy in this life, they really haven’t completely renounced it either.

To this day a worthy LDS man can still be “sealed” to more than one worthy LDS female, most notably when his first wife has preceded him in death and he remarries.

If I recall correctly there are a couple of members of the Qurom of the 12 who are in this sitation (Nelson? Oaks? Not positive)

They just are no longer to take more than one wife in THIS life. Only one at a time.

But they still believe it is a divine and holy doctrine. (D&C 132 is the reference)

It hasnt been denounced in that manner. Just in practice to conform to the civil laws (at least here in western cultures)

 

[xixxvmcm85]

One more thing as well, it is true that the separation did not take place until decades after the manifesto because many plural marriages were still being performed until well after the turn of the century.

Correct, against Church law.

This led to a second manifesto by Joseph F Smith, the president at the time. So incidently, the hierarchy from Woodruff til then would be viewed as null and void anyways.

Well I think it should be obvious how the FLDS view LDS succession, but I’m not so sure that it’s congruent with specifically the Mormon understanding of authority. If the FLDS were Catholics instead of Mormons (say… they were some kind of Sedevacantist group), then they’d have a valid argument since in Catholic ecclesiology, a Bishop is a Bishop perpetually, regardless of whether he’s in communion with other Bishops. This isn’t the case in Mormonism. A priesthood leader loses his authority once his communion with the First Presidency is severed (whether the severing is done by the individual or the Church).

 

[aquabatix]

Yes, but that all seems like filling in the dots far after the fact, though. The last LDS First President the FLDS recognize is President Taylor, yet the organization wasn’t founded until 1932. This is a stark break in how the LDS had been operating succession since Brigham Young succeeded Joseph Smith Jr. Where’s the Senior Apostle succeeding Taylor? How can they dismiss away the wide array of excommunications between 1904 and 1932? I still think you (and possibly the FLDS themselves) are incorrectly judging the validity of the FLDS through a non-Mormon lens of ecclesiology.

First, personally, I do not care. I just find it interesting.

BUT, when examining it, I do see where you are coming from with the differences in hierarchy. There does need to be a first presidency to operate, but what would happen in times of apostacy themselves? Say the current president (and possibly his quorum) were misguided? Wat would they do then?

It seems as if they would split and the remaining church would do what most churches would do, which is excommunicate them. That is exactly what the LDS did. John W. Taylor was president John Taylor’s son and a member of the 12. John W. and also Matthias F Cowley both resigned from the 12 over the manifesto. John was later excommunicated, and Matthias had his priesthood suspended for a short time. Matthias was later welcomed back into the church in his lifetime. John W died before such and was later restored posthumously.

These men were the link that continued the separated Mormons to the past and their founder JS. They would commission their own quorum and keep the line going. The excommunications would not matter because they would not see the LDS as still having authority. The new quorum of seven would be known as the Council of Friends.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

First, personally, I do not care. I just find it interesting.

BUT, when examining it, I do see where you are coming from with the differences in hierarchy. There does need to be a first presidency to operate, but what would happen in times of apostacy themselves? Say the current president (and possibly his quorum) were misguided? Wat would they do then?

Latter Day Saints are dispensationalists, and it’s generally well understood among the lay faithful that this current “Latter Day” dispensation is the “last, and greatest”. I’m not sure if there’s anything explicit in LDS scripture that specifically precludes another apostasy from happening (I’ll skim through the D&C when I get a chance), nonetheless there’s a general understanding, an assumption if you will, that the Latter Day church cannot apostatize. This sentiment is echoed by various talks given throughout the last hundred or so years by the Brethren assuring the LDS that God simply will not allow the Brethren to lead “the Saints” astray. Now your question really strikes a chord for me, and it’s a question that I had growing up Mormon that I don’t think was every satisfactorily answered. “God won’t allow it”, to me, seems as much of a copout as when Catholics tell me that it’s just unfathomable for the Pope to ever be a heretic.

It seems as if they would split and the remaining church would do what most churches would do, which is excommunicate them. That is exactly what the LDS did. John W. Taylor was president John Taylor’s son and a member of the 12. John W. and also Matthias F Cowley both resigned from the 12 over the manifesto. John was later excommunicated, and Matthias had his priesthood suspended for a short time. Matthias was later welcomed back into the church in his lifetime. John W died before such and was later restored posthumously.

Correct, but remember that in the Mormon framework, a framework that became established due to the very first succession crisis in the Latter-Day movement with Strang v. Smith III v. Young v. a slew of other people, those excommunicated members lost all priesthood authority at the moment of their excommunications. Since the FLDS and other offshoots share this understanding of authority and ecclesiology with the larger LDS body, I think it’s only fair to judge their claims of authority by said Mormon standard.

When the Great Schism occurred between East and West Christendom, each side mutually excommunicated the other side yet due to the Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the indelible mark of ordination, each side continued to recognize the validity of the other side’s authority to carry out the Sacraments. We Catholics have this distinction between “valid” and “licit” precisely due to the perpetuity of ordination, however since the Brighamite LDS (and their offshoots) understand “valid ordinances” as arising due to communion with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, they have no need for this distinction. In Mormonism, all valid ordinances are licit and all illicit ordinances are invalid.

These men were the link that continued the separated Mormons to the past and their founder JS. They would commission their own quorum and keep the line going. The excommunications would not matter because they would not see the LDS as still having authority. The new quorum of seven would be known as the Council of Friends.

Aha! But where would they even have this “authority” to “commission their own quorum” while separated from the First Presidency in the first place? I’m sure they see it as authoritative and valid, but as an outside observer with no dog in the race, I don’t think their claims stand up to objective scrutiny in light of the Mormon standard for authority.

You’ve got me curious, though, as to how they might respond so I’m going to look for some FLDS apologetics concerning the matter. Mormonism as a whole is rather versatile given continuing revelation that can override previous revelation, so who knows? Maybe the FLDS have actually changed the traditional methodology of authority?