Does the D&C authorize polyandry?

[_Wheat]

I think the following verses in Section 132 authorize sexually intimate polyandry:

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

If I'm reading this correctly, if a woman is married, she can "be with another man" as long as God has "appointed unto her by the holy anointing." She commits adultery only if God has not "appointed unto her." Verse 42 goes on to say that women who are married outside of the new and everlasting covenant do not have this right.

What do you think?

I've always thought this was a very interesting verse. I think your interpretation is correct. However, contrary to what some have suggested, I'm not sure it means that a woman so "anointed" then becomes a "wife" to the other man. Instead, it sounds more like sanctioning a temporary coupling, perhaps just so the woman could bear the other man's child.

Either way, it would appear that the god of Joseph Smith is a lot more permissive about some things than his sectarian christian counterparts. I suppose I can see why some folks in Nauvoo were a little worked up over this stuff.

[_truth dancer]

Nowhere does scripture refer to God-authorized plural marriage as an abomination.

The Book of Mormon says polygamy is an abomination and breaks the hearts of his daughters.. IF God needs seed raised up to him God will allow it... God says nothing about it not being an abomination. God allows abominations at times to suit his needs. So be it.

It is what it is.

~dancer~

[_Brackite]

Nowhere does scripture refer to God-authorized plural marriage as an abomination.

The Book of Mormon says polygamy is an abomination and breaks the hearts of his daughters.. IF God needs seed raised up to him God will allow it... God says nothing about it not being an abomination. God allows abominations at times to suit his needs. So be it.

It is what it is.

~dancer~

Hello Truth Dancer,

Yes, You are totally very right about the God of the Book of Mormon, saying Nothing about Polygamy being Not an abomination. Polygamy is referred to as being abominable and/or as an abomination in the Revelation from the Lord God given through the Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob, in Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 23-33, Three times. Here are these three times that the Lord God through His Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob, in Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 23-33, in which He Refers to Polygamy as being abominable, and/or also as an abomination:

Jacob 2:

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

[_bcspace]

Well, you've conveniently left off part of the reason. The full reason is 'raise up unto me' (Jacob 2:30). Such a reason broadens plural marraige beyond sex and can simply include raising children LDS.

This fails in its power to explain polyandry, in which the wife already had a faithful LDS husband, and it fails to explain why leaders in the church married a high number of women, including very young women who already had single LDS suitors.

It wasn't meant to explain it explicitly. The claim was made was that plural marriage was for "raising up seed" implying sexual relations must exist. "Unto me" broadens it in the sense that plural marraige (or sealings as the case may be) does not require sexual relations.

For example, a woman who looses her husband or who has an unfaithful husband need not loose out on blessing if sealed to a righteous man. Same with a divorced or widowed woman with children who is sealed to a worthy man thus including the children in the covenant.

So in an implicit way, it ends up giving some possible explainations for what appears to you to be polyandry.

[_Scottie]

But it's clear that sex with your plural wives was not forbidden. Brigham Young and others had sex with their plural wives. Why do apologists argue that Joseph did not, when there would be no reason for him not to?

I think it's for a few reasons:

Joseph Smith married fanny alger before the sealing power was 'restored'.
Joseph Smith was secretive about his marriages, hiding some of them from Emma.
Joseph Smith married women prior to his 'penning' of the revelation.
Joseph Smith lied to the population at large about polygamy.
Joseph Smith married other mens wives.

Different story for BY. He was open about it all.

But, none of the apologists deny any of these facts. What would change here if they admitted that Joseph Smith did have sex with his wives?

[_bcspace]

But, none of the apologists deny any of these facts. What would change here if they admitted that Joseph Smith did have sex with his wives?

I don't see the problem if he did.

[_beastie]

It wasn't meant to explain it explicitly. The claim was made was that plural marriage was for "raising up seed" implying sexual relations must exist. "Unto me" broadens it in the sense that plural marraige (or sealings as the case may be) does not require sexual relations.

For example, a woman who looses her husband or who has an unfaithful husband need not loose out on blessing if sealed to a righteous man. Same with a divorced or widowed woman with children who is sealed to a worthy man thus including the children in the covenant.

So in an implicit way, it ends up giving some possible explainations for what appears to you to be polyandry.

If your explanation does not explain every aspect of LDS polygamy, then it is not the foundational explanation. It may be *part* of the explanation, but as long as it doesn't explain all of the practice, then something is missing. That "something" is the idea of royal bloodlines.

So you were very misguided to say I "conveniently" left this part out. I didn't "conveniently" leave it out - I left it out because it does not have the power to explain every aspect of LDS polygamy. I know modern LDS prefer your theory over mine, because LDS teachings today have a more equitable slant - you know, where a worthy church janitor can be just as far along the track to godhood as the prophet of the church. But this is another one of those cases where the early church was very different from the modern church.

As TD says, I'm not sure Joseph Smith had this in mind from the get-go, or if it evolved later, but I think it's clear that by the time Brigham Young got a hold of the idea, this is what it was.

[_beastie]

Quote:
But, none of the apologists deny any of these facts. What would change here if they admitted that Joseph Smith did have sex with his wives?



I don't see the problem if he did.

This is what's so maddening about the cat and mouse game many apologists play, including coggins with his "PROVE that Joseph Smith had sex with Fanny Alger!" Of course apologists would justify Joseph Smith having sex with ANY of his plural wives - so the cat and mouse game is clearly meant to be a diversion.