Mormon/Polygamy question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Good_Daughter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Good_Daughter

Guest
A Mormon missionary visited me yesterday and over the course of our discussion she gave her view on polygamy which I’d never considered before. She explained how the practice was permitted by God at various times in history (documented in the OT) and the early Mormon era was simply one more of these times.

She’s coming back next week and I’m wondering if there is a good Catholic response to her claim. I did a search for “polygamy” in this forum and I understand it was an unpleasant practice of the early Mormons, cloaked in piety.

Maybe the larger issue for a Catholic is really that of authority? Any advice would be welcome.
 
Jesus put and end to that allowance that was given to some in the OT.
She knows that.
even in those cases, that was not the “ideal” set-up. It was an allowance.
Look how it turned out with Abraham. That is enough of an advertisement for why it was a bad idea and should not be done., let alone that Jesus put an end to it.
Ask her why she wants to embrace the OT and ignore the NT?
Ask her why she wants to embrace a practice Islam condones?
Ask her about their divorce policy too. That might stop any further conversations.
 
Might be worth having a copy of the catechism on hand… and look up the references beforehand and do your research so you can have a proper rebuttal…

From the catechism…
Other offenses against the dignity of marriage
2387
The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. "[Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.
 
Jesus put and end to that allowance that was given to some in the OT.
She knows that.
even in those cases, that was not the “ideal” set-up. It was an allowance.
Look how it turned out with Abraham. That is enough of an advertisement for why it was a bad idea and should not be done., let alone that Jesus put an end to it.
Ask her why she wants to embrace the OT and ignore the NT?
Ask her why she wants to embrace a practice Islam condones?
Ask her about their divorce policy too. That might stop any further conversations.
I don’t see how in her answer she’s ignoring the NT or that she’s embracing polygamy. She indicated that it was her belief that God allowed polygamy in the past and feels that it was allowed more recently than most Christians think it was allowed.

I’d be interested to know where it is in the New Testament that Jesus “put an end to it?”

Alma
 
I don’t see how in her answer she’s ignoring the NT or that she’s embracing polygamy. She indicated that it was her belief that God allowed polygamy in the past and feels that it was allowed more recently than most Christians think it was allowed.

I’d be interested to know where it is in the New Testament that Jesus “put an end to it?”

Alma
Hello Alma.

“it was allowed more recently than most Christians think it was allowed”

Umm, you mean for Prophets?

There were no prophets after Christ, any that make that claim are False Prophets.

Muhhamed, Joe Smith, et all
 
Hello Alma.
“it was allowed more recently than most Christians think it was allowed” Umm, you mean for Prophets?
I mean according to scripture. I asked where Christ did away with it, but don’t see an answer. I see that God commanded levirate marriage without regard to whether or not the surviving brother was already married.
There were no prophets after Christ, any that make that claim are False Prophets.
Muhhamed, Joe Smith, et all
Acts 11:27-28
And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
Acts 11:28
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

False prophets? Is Luke in error here by claiming that there were prophets after Christ, or do you think you might be the one in error?

Alma
 
I am not ignoring you but I dont have time now to devote to such nonsense. I will attempt to address this in full as soon as possible, so dont go away.
Give me a day to get my stuff together. I have not had to pull out the defense for this heresy since I spoke to a muslim on polygamy.
 
A Mormon missionary visited me yesterday and over the course of our discussion she gave her view on polygamy which I’d never considered before. She explained how the practice was permitted by God at various times in history (documented in the OT) and the early Mormon era was simply one more of these times.

She’s coming back next week and I’m wondering if there is a good Catholic response to her claim. I did a search for “polygamy” in this forum and I understand it was an unpleasant practice of the early Mormons, cloaked in piety.

Maybe the larger issue for a Catholic is really that of authority? Any advice would be welcome.
Joseph Smith taught that polygamy was an “everlasting covenant”. You can read their own “scriptures” from off their own website. Here is Doctrine and Covenants 132 where it deals with their position on Polygamy and their status as becoming “gods”.
 
Hellisreal, I would appreciate any information you are able to provide on polygamy as well. I think the big difference between Mormons and Catholics on this issue is that Mormons view polygamy as an occasional necessity but not intrinsically evil while Catholics have always found the practice unacceptable. I would love to know why only since the coming of Christ has there been a moratorium on polygamy.

I’m guessing divorce is a non-issue with Mormons as I couldn’t find anything about it in my copy of “Gospel Principles”, but I’d like to dig deeper. I’m interested in how it could be a conversation stopper, although I’m not sure I want the conversation stopped between Catholics and Mormons.

Em_in_Fl, thanks for your response. The catechism is indispensible to me as I prepare to share the Catholic faith with anyone.

Alma147, I’m glad to hear from you as you understand the perspective of my Mormon visitor. As a Catholic, I love praying and respectfully discussing faith with Mormon missionaries. I believe the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Acts 11 therefore refers to a time before such prophesy ended. (I am aware of the LDS issue surrounding the apostle John but that’s another topic entirely!)
 
The first marriage was Adam and Eve. Gods intention for marriage was one man and one woman, he could have given adam many options, or many wives yet he did not.

This was the ideal.

As the rebellious OT times came about God allowed for many indiscresions.

As I illustrated in my bringing up Abraham, they were always depicted as lousy marriages. There are other examples yet I dont have time now to dig into all that now.

Jesus explains it in Matt 19:5

Also, we see a pattern of leaders and believers to have ONE wife

1 Tim, 3,2, and again somewhere in that book-

and Cor 7:2

Why I asked about divorce is men “put away” their mormon wives in ways that are extremely creul and unfair.

I have seen many tales of woe even here on this forum from mormon women who were getting the “treatment” and its the saddest thing I think a person can read.

(try search feature- I dont recall the title of the thread but I will look tomorrow since this has been talked about)

Anyway, I dont want to appear to not care about our Mormon friends I most certainly do.

I am not sure what prompted the Mormons to start out not having the practice, then taking it up, then letting the government tell them they had to stop. I am not aware of all those dates and the timeline on it.

If the only defense is found in the OT for this practice, then I would like to know how they reconcile this with Jesus. After all, stoning was allowed in the OT also, but Jesus stopped that. But, for some reason people dont take Jesus seriously when he speaks.:eek:
 
Obviously Christianty has always opposed polygamy. Christ made it clear that things like divorce allowed in the past due to hard hearts would end with the New Covenant. However, laying that aside for a moment, Mormon polygamy in no way can be considered what was practiced in the OT. The anicent Israelites had clear rules against marrying sisters, mothers and daughters, among others. That Mormons were actively involved in these perverse “marriages,” it’s well documented. Not to mention pedophiles like Joseph Smith marrying 15 year old girls in their 40’s. As in common knowledge girls in the 19th century began puberty later, averaging 16-17. The definition of pedophila is of course a sexual interest in pre-pubscent children.
 
I cant think of the verse right now but wasnt it when God invented marriage. (dont know how to put that)

But something like now a man will take a woman and what you did you do no more

errrr my fuzzy brain sometimes . . . … anybody?
 
When teaching about marriage Jesus points our mind to the beginning. To Adam and Eve. And how two become one flesh.

The first mention of polygamy in the bible is in Genesis. The passage Gen 4 16 -24 , describes the increasing sin manifesting in man and begins with Cain’s banishment from the face of the Lord. This passage ends it’s account of cain’s line with Lamech seventh generation from Cain. Lamech claims 7 times 7 vengence for wrongs committed against him. Revenge in it’s most complete manifestation. Lamech is giving a warning and punctuates it by describing a killing of another at his hands. The warning is being given to his two wives. This is the first man the bible mentions as having more than one wife. This tells us that polygamy began in Cain’s line.

The line of Adam begins with monogamy in Adam and ends with monogamy in Noah. Seth is first in the image of his father , so we have good reason to believe the line of Adam practices Monogamy.
These two opposing lines of generation, one from Adam the other from Cain is mentioned in Gen 6 as the Sons of God who gave up monogamous marriage having been seduced and scandalized by the polygamy of the daughters of men. (Cains line).
 
I cant think of the verse right now but wasnt it when God invented marriage. (dont know how to put that)

But something like now a man will take a woman and what you did you do no more

errrr my fuzzy brain sometimes . . . … anybody?
And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. 24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.

do you mean this passage??? it’s the only thing that came to mind.
 
Hellisreal, I would appreciate any information you are able to provide on polygamy as well. I think the big difference between Mormons and Catholics on this issue is that Mormons view polygamy as an occasional necessity but not intrinsically evil while Catholics have always found the practice unacceptable. I would love to know why only since the coming of Christ has there been a moratorium on polygamy.
I’m not sure if this will be of assistance to you, but I thought I’d post it:

theuniversityconcourse.com/II,3,10-16-1996/cc/Weldon.htm

*Polygamy (in both its forms) is forbidden according to the moral law of the Church. But there is a weak case to be made for polygyny in natural law, which goes as follows: It is critical for a child’s self-identity to know who his parents are. Therefore, the practice of polyandry is unthinkable as “man naturally desires to know his offspring, and this knowledge would be completely destroyed if there were several males for one female. Therefore, that one female is for one male is a consequence of natural instinct.” (Summa Contra Gentiles III. 124.1) In the practice of polyandry there is no certainty of family relations as the woman has sexual relations with numerous men. Simply put, according to Thomas, polygyny does not directly conflict with natural law because in it the child knows who his parents are. However, this is not where Thomas’ discussion of marriage ends.

Relying on Aristotle, Thomas speaks of the need for friendship within the marriage covenant. Polygyny debases women because there is no opportunity for friendship. Friendship demands equality, and “the greater that friendship is, the more long lasting it will be, [and] there seems to be the greatest friendship between husband and wife.” (SCG III. 123.6) An unfortunate type of abandonment takes place in a polygynous environment. A covenant of love is eradicated for the utility of a contract involving the breeding of offspring. If this were the precedent for marriage, then there could be no real friendship, and no effectual love for children coming from a plurality of wives. The wife (wives) would then be relegated to a position of servitude. (SCG III 124.4)

Throughout Church history the love of God for his people has consistently been in reference to the marriage of one man and one woman. Ephesians 5: 24-32 speaks of this and, indeed, the analogy is widely used in the Old Testament, as in Hosea and the Song of Songs.*

I’m not sure how convincing the natural law case against polyandry now is with the advent of DNA testing, but this was St. Thomas Aquinas’ opinion back in the middle ages.

I’ve met some Mormons (missionaries) who seemed to still like polygamy as an ideal. They said the Church (Mormon Church) decided to abandon the practice due to persecution. The impression I have though is that most Mormons don’t idealize it.
 
I forgot to mention Christ’s example of marriage himself- being married to the Church.
Also read Eph 5:21-33

CCC 1660, 2366 is good reading also.

I would also like to ask from a practical standpoint how many men can support a family structure like this and if the husband dies, how are the “other wives” protected financially? Are they at the mercy of the legal wife who gets his benefits? How are the children impacted by such arrangements?

Any justification of Polygamy seems to fall flat. We see no continuous pattern of this in the Christian community. Marriage in the Church has never been allowed to be done this way. The Mormons, who started in the United States, and are a new religious cult seems to make the claim that this is how it has always been. I would like to see the proof that it has.
 
The claim the Mormon lady makes is, indeed, biblical - God approved and approves of polygamy, Jesus has never changed this. The respective verses people like to quote from the gospels of Matthew (Chapter 5) and Mark (Chapter 10) refer to divorce, and not to plural marriage.
The problem you are running into with this Mormon lady is that she will argue from Scripture that polygamy is not sinful, and you cannot refute it. You can fall back on Roman Catholic doctrine and claim that the Roman Catholic Church decided at some point in the the first centuries after Christ that polygamy was sinful, but of course this Mormon lady will argue from Scripture that this is just man’s law and not God’s word, and you will ultimately be in the position of saying that you rather stick with Roman Catholic doctrine than with God’s infallible word, which is not a comfortable position to be in.
Of course the Mormons ultimately do not proclaim Sola Scripture either, just like the Roman Catholic church does not rely on Scripture only, but that will not help you in standing up to her concerning polygamy.
There is not much you can do about this topic, it seems to me, other than asking the Mormon lady whether she does not see it as an inconsistency that the Mormons do not practice polygamy anymore nowadays (at least not the mainstream Mormons) just because they were interested in statehood at one point and sacrificed this practice in favor of political power. But since the Roman Catholic Church is interested in political power just the same, it is not going to be a strong stand you are making in this regard either.
Generally speaking, as a Roman Catholic you are not exactly encouraged to look into the bible all that much because you will find many things that do not go well with what the church has taught throughout the centuries, and teaches these days, so whenever someone questions your faith on the basis of Scripture, you have to decide whether to stick with Scripture (and deny Roman Catholic doctrine in one point or another) or stick with doctrine and rely on something like “progressive revelation”, which of course the Mormons can claim for themselves too.
It is no secret that Mormons, as well as Jehova’s Witnesses, find most of their converts among Roman Catholic women, because it is so very easy to show them the inconsistencies in Roman Catholic doctrine. Mormons and Jehova’s Witnesses have books that tell them exactly how to shake your (Roman Catholic) faith, so when this Mormon lady comes back, she has not had only a week of preparation for the conversation you are going to have, but years, and she has had plenty of argumentative help to rely on.
IMHO, you will have to decide for yourself whether you want to cling to Scripture (and in the process question Roman Catholic doctrine, privately as well as in the conversation with this lady), or whether you want to cling to Roman Catholic doctrine and deny the infallibility of Scripture at some point.
I hope you will continue to cling to Scripture, as you have so far in the replies you sent to people’s comments.
Grace and Peace,
Talitha
 
Talitha, you are wrong.

Did you ignore my posts? How about Matt 19:5?

How about ONE wife for believers and leaders?

1 Tim 3,2

Cor 7:2

And, your false allegations about the Catholic Church are wild and without citations or proof, or credibility.

It is not the Roman Catholic Church, that is for STARTERS.

I will discect the rest of your innacuracies later.
 
I’m going to offer a differing viewpoint. I believe that scripture IS good for the Catholic position. I believe that TRADITION is sometimes necessary to see that. All tradition does is show us how the writers and their contemporaries and “students” understood the scriptures. What they did helps us to understand what they believed the scriptures mean and require of us. That’s important because interpreting scripture in a “vacuum” tends to create anachronistic skewing as we try to understood through our own modern day socio-economic/ethnocentric point of view.

The OT in my opinion condemns polygamy. God gives Adam Eve. One wife and in genesis shows us that is the “model” for marriage.(genesis 1:27 and 2:24) we see most cases of polygamy are concubinage. (abraham is “given” hagar. Jacob is “given” handmaids", etc.) This doesn’t seem to be an optimal relationship and appears to be the result of lack of faith (abraham and sarah can’t wait for a child and “give up” by “using” hagar) or “bad beahvior”. (Jacob has two wives due to his father in laws dishonesty. David and solomon sin grievously against marriage)

The NT shows us that the OT really meant for monogamy to be the “proper” state. (i defer to a more learned writer here):

*David Instone-Brewer writes:

“A move towards monogamy started very early, as evidenced by a gloss in the Septuagint and other early versions at Genesis 2:24, which read ‘and they two shall become one flesh.’ The word ‘two’ is not present in the Masoretic text, but it is found very widely in ancient versions. This gloss was included in the text when Jesus and Paul cited it. Although this gloss was widespread, it did not cause the Hebrew text to be changed. Even at Qumran, when they were amassing arguments against polygamy (see below), the text was not quoted in this form, and there is no example of the Hebrew text being quoted with the word ‘two’ in it. It appears that this gloss was a very common addition to the text, and that it was recognized as a comment on the text rather than a variant of it. This means that the purpose of the addition must have been obvious to the reader. The gloss affirmed that a marriage is made between only two individuals, and thus polygamy is an abberation…The significant point, as far as the Gospel text [Matthew 19] is concerned, is that this variant text is used very self-consciously, with the additional comment [Matthew 19:5] ‘So they are no longer two but one’ emphasizing the presence of the word ‘two.’…Both [the gospel of] Mark and the Damascus Document [a document critical of polygamy] cite exactly the same portion of Genesis 1:27, and they both precede the quotation with a very similar phrase. Mark refers to ‘the beginning of creation’…while the Damascus Document used the phrase ‘the foundation of creation’…they are semantically identical…Jesus was making the point very strongly. He was saying not only that polygamy was immoral but that it was illegal. He gave scriptural proofs that polygamy was against God’s will. This meant that the man’s second marriage was invalid, and thus he was cohabiting with an unmarried woman.” (Divorce And Remarriage In The Bible [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002], pp. 61, 137-138, 151)

I see at least a few indications here that Jesus was siding with the anti-polygamists of His day:
  1. He cites Genesis 1:27 with Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:4-5), a common anti-polygamist combination of scripture.
  2. He quotes the anti-polygamist paraphrase of Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:5), not the original Hebrew, which has a history of use by anti-polygamists.
  3. He emphasizes the word “two” by mentioning it again in Matthew 19:6.
  4. He uses the phrase “from the beginning” (Matthew 19:8), which is known to have been used in anti-polygamist argumentation.*
 
continued

It should be noted that Paul also repeatedly uses the anti-polygamist rendering of Genesis 2:24 (1 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31). Ephesians 5 is inherently anti-polygamist. Paul tells us that there’s only one Christ and only one church (Ephesians 4:4-5), then he makes that relationship the model for the marriage relationship. He also uses the head/body imagery (Ephesians 5:23), and there can be only one head and one body. Paul goes on to cite Genesis 2:24 (Ephesians 5:31). I think that the most natural way to read Ephesians 5 is as a New Testament expansion of Genesis 2. In other words, Ephesians 5 is about the nature of all marriage, not just some marriages (monogamous marriages). To argue that Ephesians 5 doesn’t apply to polygamists would be like arguing that Genesis 2 doesn’t either. If polygamists aren’t going to get their model for marriage from Genesis 2 or Ephesians 5, then where are they going to get it?

Romans 7:3 seems to be contrary to polygamy as well. Douglas Moo writes:

“he [Paul] certainly uses the word ‘law’] in 6:14, 15 and in most of chap. 7 with reference to the Mosaic law…It is almost certain, then, that Paul here refers to the Mosaic law…Since Paul does not mention divorce, we can assume that the remarriage of the woman has taken place without a divorce of any kind; and any such remarriage is, of course, adulterous. Further, any body of law that Paul may be citing - Roman or OT (cf. Deut. 25:1-4) - allows for remarriage on grounds other than the death of the spouse.” (The Epistle To The Romans [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996], pp. 411-412, n. 24 on p. 413)

Some of the most explicit passages that can be cited against polygamy are from the Old Testament, such as Genesis 2 and Proverbs 5. In Proverbs 5, we aren’t told to be satisfied with our wife if she’s all God allows us to have. It isn’t suggested that we could seek other women if we want to. Rather, we’re told to be satisfied with her throughout our life. Solomon’s answer to sexual temptation is monogamy with the wife of your youth, not polygamy. Bruce Waltke cites Proverbs 5 as an illustration of 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 and writes that “Marriage is here thought of as strongly monogamous.” (The Book Of Proverbs: Chapters 1-15 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004], pp. 317, 321) Proverbs 5:17 refers to your wife being yours alone, which can only be monogamy, and the wife is referred to as satisfying the husband’s sexual thirst, which is, again, monogamy. The woman is to meet the man’s sexual desires “at all times” and “always” (Proverbs 5:19), which, again, can only be monogamy. Solomon is referring to sexual relations, so he can’t be saying that a husband is to be always satisfied with his first wife, even as he’s having sex with his second, third, and fourth wives. Similarly, Solomon writes in Ecclesiastes 9:9 about how one wife is the reward a man is given, as if he should be satisfied with her alone.

it is interesting to me that Mormon scripture seems to strongly condemn OT polygamy:

Jacob 2:27
“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.”
And Jacob 2:24 says,
“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”


as far as tradition helping us we can look to the ECFs and see their condemnation of polygamy (Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian) which is the result of their understanding of scriupture. Justin Martyr is especially uotspoken:

If, then, the teaching of the prophets and of Himself moves you, it is better for you [followers of Judaism] to follow God than your imprudent and blind masters, who even till this time permit each man to have four or five wives; and if any one see a beautiful woman and desire to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob called Israel, and of the other patriarchs, and maintain that it is not wrong to do such things; for they are miserably ignorant in this matter." (Dialogue With Trypho, 134) and Eusebius mentions Christians who avoid polygamy even when living in polygamous regions (“neither in Parthia do the Christians, Parthians though they are, practise polygamy”, Preparation For The Gospel,6:10).

I believe that the powerful combination of scripture and tradition gives the Catholic church a powerful (and True) foundation from which to proclaim authoritatively that polygamy is NOT what God wants for man and it never has been. The Mormon position, regardless of what is practiced on earth today is that polygamy is God’s preference and will be the rule in the Celestial Kingdom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top