Did most 19th century LDS leaders break the Law of Chastity?

[_kamenraider]

Mormon.org, in an article entitled "Live the Law of Chastity", says this:

"God has commanded that the sacred power and privilege of sexual relations be exercised only between a man and woman who are legally married. This commandment is referred to as the law of chastity, and keeping it brings peace, self-respect, and strength from self-control."

Those who receive the LDS temple endowment, covenant (as Elder Talmage put it) to "observe the law of strict virtue and chastity."

So since most 19th century LDS leaders were polygamists who were illegally married to their plural wives, did they break the Law of Chastity?

The answer: No, because (without being specific) their covenant to live the Law of Chastity had to do only with wives who were given to them by the holy priesthood, and did not mention legality.

My point is, that sometime during the early part of the 20th century, the Law of Chastity was redefined and rewritten to be necessarily anti-polygamy by requiring legality of marriages.

Well, "So what?" you might ask. In 1886 the Lord gave a revelation to John Taylor in which He stated "I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not."

What are your thoughts about this?

[_Scottie]

Well, there is legally as defined by the state and legally in the eyes of God.

I believe the early saints believed that they were leagal in the eyes of God, even if they weren't legal in the eyes of the state.

[_Tchild]

So since most 19th century LDS leaders were polygamists who were illegally married to their plural wives, did they break the Law of Chastity?

The "law of chastity" is a religious construct. If it is received by revelation or inspiration, then it can be superceded by the same methods in the eyes of believers.

19th century polygamists believed they were following God's will concerning "the new and everlasting covenant", which rested on a higher rung of the LDS moral hierarchy at that place and time (moral relativism within Mormon teachings).

To answer your question, a disbeliever would have to enter a fictitious world of religiously constructed morals and moral hierarchies and make such a decision on assumptions that the disbeliever does not necessary hold as valid; an interventionist God, revelation, a "law of chastity", etc etc.

[_just me]

I think a lot of hearts were broken.

[_truth dancer]

Did Warren Jeffs break the law of chastity with his girls and women?

in my opinion, the early LDS church was living a seriously strange system when it comes to anything even remotely considered "moral." Women leaving husbands for a more righteous man without divorce, men being assigned girls and women, women being virtually passed around, men giving their wives to Joseph Smith, etc. etc. The whole thing seems to have nothing to do with morality and everything to do with obedience, power, and glory (and sex).

While I don't buy into the religious version of "morality" I do believe in the sense of goodness and kindness and my observation is that the early LDS church eliminated these from their life in exchange for power and glory and prestige. It was a mess, a mess filled with fatherless children, broken hearted girls and women, men without partners, and a primitive, animalistic mating strategy. Nothing moral about it.

Just keeping it real! ;-)

~td~

[_kamenraider]

Well, there is legally as defined by the state and legally in the eyes of God.

I believe the early saints believed that they were leagal in the eyes of God, even if they weren't legal in the eyes of the state.

Yeah, D&C 132:11 says "will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?" Still, though, the phrase "legally and lawfully wedded" doesn't seem like it's only referring to this, especially when contrasted with the superceded phrase which mentions only a "lawful wife or wives" given by the holy priesthood.

[_bcspace]

Well, "So what?" you might ask. In 1886 the Lord gave a revelation to John Taylor in which He stated "I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not."

What are your thoughts about this?

His word and law on plural marriage hasn't changed. Prior plural marriages aren't invalidated and a man can still be sealed to more than one woman. In addition, the doctrine still is that God authorized plural marriage is still kosher and that God does authorize such from time to time.

[_kamenraider]

bcspace,

Did the chastity covenant change, though?

What do you think about that?

(by the way, I think the position on plural marriage has changed in the sense that it has been made un-essential.)

[_zzyzx]

In 1886 the Lord gave a revelation to John Taylor in which He stated "I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not."
-----------------------

Since God is a Celestialized man... was he speaking as a God or just as a Man?

[_Fiannan]

I am really surprised that the polygamists don't use the following logic to promote their cause --

In the LDS Church it is often said that Eve partaking of the fruit was not as bad as it seems since she saw that without breaking this law then her role in creation of the human race would not come about. Even heard some people say this made her superior to Adam who was too stubborn to take the next step -- even though it would mean disobedience to God.

I am really surprised that the polygamists don't apply this logic in order to make inroads in LDS populations. Couldn't an LDS man become a polygamist and say that he is following in the steps of Eve and fulfilling a higher law -- and that any sacrifices this entails (legal and in church membership) is akin to the sacrifices Adam and Eve had to make to do what is right?