Question on Law of Chastity wording

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
UncleDragon
captain of 10
Posts: 16

Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by UncleDragon »

I've been curious if the wording on the Law of Chastity as explained "Legally and Lawfully wedded" has been consistent throughout the time of the Temple covenants explained.

Was this added post Wilford Woodruff and the Official Proclamation on the ceasing of plural marriage in church history, or has the verbage not changed like others have over time?

Sources appreciated w/ answers, my efforts have run dry.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by JLHPROF »

No, it's been changed repeatedly. It used to allow for polygamy and lasted several decades after. It used to require priesthood sealings to be considered lawful, not local laws.

User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by Fred »

Marriage is more of an intent than a legality. Except for the payment of a fee. It is the payment of the fee that makes it legal.

During the settling of the west, when ministers may pass through town only rarely, it was common for people to live together and have children with God's permission. It was called Common Law Marriage. By the time a third child was born, a pastor would have come by and once the government had received it's mandatory satanic fee, it was considered legal.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by ransomme »

JLHPROF wrote: November 9th, 2022, 10:15 pm No, it's been changed repeatedly. It used to allow for polygamy and lasted several decades after. It used to require priesthood sealings to be considered lawful, not local laws.
Pres Hinkley explained it this way to the translators and sealers here (because legal and lawful are the same word on Finnish) that legal refers to the state and lawful is God's law.

User avatar
MikeMaillet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1594
Location: Ingleside, Ontario

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by MikeMaillet »

If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike

HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2600

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by HVDC »

MikeMaillet wrote: November 10th, 2022, 5:16 am If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike
Actually.

We don't.

Nor from any church either.

The only permission needed.

Is from the parties involved.

Formal marriage was to notify everyone else to keep their hands off.

Under penalty of death.

Without sanction.

Simple.

Like the Gospel.

Sir H

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by inho »

Wasn't there a change to this just in 2019?
I think now it is "legally and lawfully wedded according to His law". So a legal gay marriage will not do.

On the other hand, the current wording is more ambiguous and could be interpreted to allow polygamy:
Pre 2019
shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.
Post 2019
the women of God’s kingdom and the men of God’s kingdom shall have no sexual relations except with those to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded according to His law.
Last edited by inho on November 10th, 2022, 2:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

moving2zion
captain of 100
Posts: 550

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by moving2zion »

Definitely opens things up a bit.

User avatar
JK4Woods
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2507

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by JK4Woods »

Well… in the temple the promise now is to only allow sexual relations between males and female member of the “kingdom”.

HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2600

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by HVDC »

JK4Woods wrote: November 10th, 2022, 9:04 am Well… in the temple the promise now is to only allow sexual relations between males and female member of the “kingdom”.
LOL!

Isn't that any member then?

Wow.

Things are getting interesting...

Pandora's Box indeed.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive' - Sir Walter Scott.

Sir H

User avatar
Chip
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7909
Location: California

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by Chip »

JK4Woods wrote: November 10th, 2022, 9:04 am Well… in the temple the promise now is to only allow sexual relations between males and female member of the “kingdom”.
Is this for real? Very hard to believe.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by inho »

Chip wrote: November 10th, 2022, 10:36 am
JK4Woods wrote: November 10th, 2022, 9:04 am Well… in the temple the promise now is to only allow sexual relations between males and female member of the “kingdom”.
Is this for real? Very hard to believe.
No. That seems to be a misunderstanding of
the women of God’s kingdom and the men of God’s kingdom shall have no sexual relations except with those to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded according to His always law.

Edit: typo correction
It doesn’t say that "those to whom they are ... wedded" are of God's kingdom.
Last edited by inho on November 10th, 2022, 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Chip
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7909
Location: California

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by Chip »

inho wrote: November 10th, 2022, 1:15 pm
Chip wrote: November 10th, 2022, 10:36 am
JK4Woods wrote: November 10th, 2022, 9:04 am Well… in the temple the promise now is to only allow sexual relations between males and female member of the “kingdom”.
Is this for real? Very hard to believe.
No. That seems to be a misunderstanding of
the women of God’s kingdom and the men of God’s kingdom shall have no sexual relations except with those to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded according to His always.
It doesn’t say that "those to whom they are ... wedded" are of God's kingdom.
Okay. Thanks. But, what does "according to His always" mean? That wording is strange.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by inho »

Chip wrote: November 10th, 2022, 1:45 pm But, what does "according to His always" mean? That wording is strange.
Sorry, seems like autocorrect has fixed a typo incorrectly. ☺️
"According to His law." I think they added that since same-sex marriage is more commonly legal now.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by ransomme »

inho wrote: November 10th, 2022, 7:09 am Wasn't there a change to this just in 2019?
I think now it is "legally and lawfully wedded according to His law". So a legal gay marriage will not do.

On the other hand, the current wording is more ambiguous and could be interpreted to allow polygamy:
Pre 2019
shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.
Post 2019
the women of God’s kingdom and the men of God’s kingdom shall have no sexual relations except with those to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded according to His law.
Per the Church, this indeed implies that anyone married to a non-member is breaking the law of chastity.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by FrankOne »

MikeMaillet wrote: November 10th, 2022, 5:16 am If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike
^

Marriage is between the persons getting married. To get a marriage license is merely a way for the state to regulate your marriage. It's that simple. A license to get married? Just thinking about it is laughable. A license is something you ask permission for and pay for. Plain stupid.

User avatar
JLHPROF
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1087

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by JLHPROF »

FrankOne wrote: November 10th, 2022, 6:54 pm
MikeMaillet wrote: November 10th, 2022, 5:16 am If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike
^

Marriage is between the persons getting married. To get a marriage license is merely a way for the state to regulate your marriage. It's that simple. A license to get married? Just thinking about it is laughable. A license is something you ask permission for and pay for. Plain stupid.
They are also a method to keep records. Record keeping is necessary according to God.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by FrankOne »

JLHPROF wrote: November 10th, 2022, 7:23 pm
FrankOne wrote: November 10th, 2022, 6:54 pm
MikeMaillet wrote: November 10th, 2022, 5:16 am If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike
^

Marriage is between the persons getting married. To get a marriage license is merely a way for the state to regulate your marriage. It's that simple. A license to get married? Just thinking about it is laughable. A license is something you ask permission for and pay for. Plain stupid.
They are also a method to keep records. Record keeping is necessary according to God.
hm. that's a different slant. So, county/city/state records will be used by God. Although I do not believe that, I can't fault another for their beliefs.

User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by Fred »

JLHPROF wrote: November 10th, 2022, 7:23 pm
FrankOne wrote: November 10th, 2022, 6:54 pm
MikeMaillet wrote: November 10th, 2022, 5:16 am If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike
^

Marriage is between the persons getting married. To get a marriage license is merely a way for the state to regulate your marriage. It's that simple. A license to get married? Just thinking about it is laughable. A license is something you ask permission for and pay for. Plain stupid.
They are also a method to keep records. Record keeping is necessary according to God.
Records kept by the government have only one purpose. That is so they can arrest anyone that did not comply. Church records and genealogy are kept for free.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by Niemand »

MikeMaillet wrote: November 10th, 2022, 5:16 am If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike
There are certain types of marriage that should be illegal such as those involving close relatives, children or compulsion. There are also people who'd like to marry animals or objects (which has already happened unofficially), autogamy/sologamy (which is just nutty) and so on. In fact, there are some other forms of potential marriage that are so bizarre they resemble traditional heterosexual monogamy even less than same-sex marriage does.

"Legal and lawful" is an obvious way of saying "we're not polygamists", and kowtowing to worldly authority...
ransomme wrote: November 9th, 2022, 11:23 pm Pres Hinkley explained it this way to the translators and sealers here (because legal and lawful are the same word on Finnish) that legal refers to the state and lawful is God's law.
Hinckley's interpretation of these two words is questionable. The two terms are synonymous, so why use both of them? "Legal" is the French derived term, via the Norman ruling class, and "lawful" is the Germanic derived Anglo-Saxon term of the common people... but other than that there is little or no difference between their meanings, just like "plural marriage" and "polygamy" mean the same thing.

We know fine well that there is God's law, and human law, and that these are often two different things, but that is not a differentiation I see bound up in those two words.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by Niemand »

ransomme wrote: November 10th, 2022, 2:20 pm
inho wrote: November 10th, 2022, 7:09 am Wasn't there a change to this just in 2019?
I think now it is "legally and lawfully wedded according to His law". So a legal gay marriage will not do.

On the other hand, the current wording is more ambiguous and could be interpreted to allow polygamy:
Pre 2019
shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.
Post 2019
the women of God’s kingdom and the men of God’s kingdom shall have no sexual relations except with those to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded according to His law.
Per the Church, this indeed implies that anyone married to a non-member is breaking the law of chastity.
The FP seems to be great at creating these anomalies without thinking the consequences through properly. This reminds me of the children of gay parents mess all over again... except it will probably never be challenged in the same way.

Many of us know members who are happily married to non-LDS. I suspect this is a spur to getting people into the temple to do sealings to recently deceased non-member spouses, but it's bad enough.

User avatar
MikeMaillet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1594
Location: Ingleside, Ontario

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by MikeMaillet »

Niemand wrote: November 11th, 2022, 3:15 am
MikeMaillet wrote: November 10th, 2022, 5:16 am If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike
There are certain types of marriage that should be illegal such as those involving close relatives, children or compulsion. There are also people who'd like to marry animals or objects (which has already happened unofficially), autogamy/sologamy (which is just nutty) and so on. In fact, there are some other forms of potential marriage that are so bizarre they resemble traditional heterosexual monogamy even less than same-sex marriage does.

"Legal and lawful" is an obvious way of saying "we're not polygamists", and kowtowing to worldly authority...

I have a big issue with the phrase "legal and lawful" from a linguistic point of view. I see the two terms are synonymous, so why use both of them? "Legal" is the French derived term, via the Norman ruling class, and "lawful" is the Germanic derived Anglo-Saxon term of the common people... but other than that there is little or no difference between their meanings, just like "plural marriage" and "polygamy" mean the same thing.
Thanks, Niemand. The question was rhetorical and I was hoping to get people to think about our relationship with government. All of the marriage and age of majority laws did not prevent a schmuck like Jerry Lee Lewis from marrying his 13 year old cousin, unfortunately.

Mike

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by inho »

ransomme wrote: November 10th, 2022, 2:20 pm
inho wrote: November 10th, 2022, 7:09 am Wasn't there a change to this just in 2019?
I think now it is "legally and lawfully wedded according to His law". So a legal gay marriage will not do.

On the other hand, the current wording is more ambiguous and could be interpreted to allow polygamy:
Pre 2019
shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.
Post 2019
the women of God’s kingdom and the men of God’s kingdom shall have no sexual relations except with those to whom they are legally and lawfully wedded according to His law.
Per the Church, this indeed implies that anyone married to a non-member is breaking the law of chastity.
I disagree. "According to His law" is not well defined. One could interpret it to mean sealing. Or then not. The church do allow civil marriages, so in my opinion those fall under "His law".

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by Niemand »

MikeMaillet wrote: November 11th, 2022, 3:31 am
Niemand wrote: November 11th, 2022, 3:15 am
MikeMaillet wrote: November 10th, 2022, 5:16 am If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike
There are certain types of marriage that should be illegal such as those involving close relatives, children or compulsion. There are also people who'd like to marry animals or objects (which has already happened unofficially), autogamy/sologamy (which is just nutty) and so on. In fact, there are some other forms of potential marriage that are so bizarre they resemble traditional heterosexual monogamy even less than same-sex marriage does.

"Legal and lawful" is an obvious way of saying "we're not polygamists", and kowtowing to worldly authority...

I have a big issue with the phrase "legal and lawful" from a linguistic point of view. I see the two terms are synonymous, so why use both of them? "Legal" is the French derived term, via the Norman ruling class, and "lawful" is the Germanic derived Anglo-Saxon term of the common people... but other than that there is little or no difference between their meanings, just like "plural marriage" and "polygamy" mean the same thing.
Thanks, Niemand. The question was rhetorical and I was hoping to get people to think about our relationship with government. All of the marriage and age of majority laws did not prevent a schmuck like Jerry Lee Lewis from marrying his 13 year old cousin, unfortunately.

Mike
I agree with you... If an eleven year old girl is being forced to marry her uncle or brother, then some government intervention probably is merited, and if some man wants to marry his dog or utility vehicle that should not be recognised either.

As for Jerry Lee Lewis.... I admit I do enjoy some of his music, but I did notice that particular marriage was barely mentioned in the media after his death. (Mind you this is the same media that will lay into Harvey Weinstein – with some justification – but remains silent on Led Zeppelin's paedophile behaviour... or most other Hollywood producers.) I'm told a lot of Southerners were PO'd about JLL at the time, because his marriage perpetuated stereotypes against them.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2826

Re: Question on Law of Chastity wording

Post by FrankOne »

Niemand wrote: November 11th, 2022, 3:59 am
MikeMaillet wrote: November 11th, 2022, 3:31 am
Niemand wrote: November 11th, 2022, 3:15 am
MikeMaillet wrote: November 10th, 2022, 5:16 am If marriage is from God, why do we need permission from the state/government in order to get married?

Mike
There are certain types of marriage that should be illegal such as those involving close relatives, children or compulsion. There are also people who'd like to marry animals or objects (which has already happened unofficially), autogamy/sologamy (which is just nutty) and so on. In fact, there are some other forms of potential marriage that are so bizarre they resemble traditional heterosexual monogamy even less than same-sex marriage does.

"Legal and lawful" is an obvious way of saying "we're not polygamists", and kowtowing to worldly authority...

I have a big issue with the phrase "legal and lawful" from a linguistic point of view. I see the two terms are synonymous, so why use both of them? "Legal" is the French derived term, via the Norman ruling class, and "lawful" is the Germanic derived Anglo-Saxon term of the common people... but other than that there is little or no difference between their meanings, just like "plural marriage" and "polygamy" mean the same thing.
Thanks, Niemand. The question was rhetorical and I was hoping to get people to think about our relationship with government. All of the marriage and age of majority laws did not prevent a schmuck like Jerry Lee Lewis from marrying his 13 year old cousin, unfortunately.

Mike
I agree with you... If an eleven year old girl is being forced to marry her uncle or brother, then some government intervention probably is merited, and if some man wants to marry his dog or utility vehicle that should not be recognised either.

As for Jerry Lee Lewis.... I admit I do enjoy some of his music, but I did notice that particular marriage was barely mentioned in the media after his death. (Mind you this is the same media that will lay into Harvey Weinstein – with some justification – but remains silent on Led Zeppelin's paedophile behaviour... or most other Hollywood producers.) I'm told a lot of Southerners were PO'd about JLL at the time, because his marriage perpetuated stereotypes against them.
A legal marriage is regulated by statutes of law.
You pay for the privilege to have your union approved by the world. Forget about rights. Privileges carry a price and bring bondage.

So, a couple can get their license and have sex and the Church smiles. That same couple divorces in a year and does it again and the Church says "that's ok, it's within the LAW" THEREFORE GOD APPROVES.

Choose to forego the govt approved license and have children, enjoy a joyful union of becoming one and then pass on to the other side together and the doors of heaven are LOCKED! and you can't go to heaven! This is all beyond stupid. Ludicrous notions supported by those that do not have the capacity to think things through.

The law of man has become God.

As with Doctors. A doctor can prescribe a fluorine based anti-anxiety med that damages the synaptic functions of the brain and it's lawful, so the Q15 clap because God approves because it is legal.

Have two glasses of wine before bed to calm nerves and you can't get a temple recommend AKA - You can't go to heaven. Has reasoning fled this world?

Post Reply