Mormon/Polygamy question

[majick275]

aah yes the “righteous seed” argument. I claim that as problematic for the LDS because it doesn’t explicitly allow polygamy. There are many BoM believers who feel that it means that INSTEAD of polygamy the Lord will raise up seed through monogamy.

(restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp18.htm)

The original D&C which was in effect at the time of JS death contained a section that proclaimed polygamy a crime, that the LDS did NOT practice it and that the official doctrine of the LDS church was that each man should only have one wife. So there’s room for confusion as to how anything other than section 132 gives scriptural approval for polygamy. I find it a source of cognitive dissonance that the BoM and the D&C (current versions) use the same examples of David and Solomon to both endorse and condemn polygamy

1 Kings 15:5 doesn’t say God commanded David to be a polygamist. So we can get confused about “how married” David was to these other wives or how “okay with it” the Lord was if we read his story in a vacuum. I believe that the Bible as a whole, especially Jesus words, makes it clear that monogamy is what God instituted for Humans. IT is how he wants us those of us called to the married to life to live.

 

[Alma147]

I want to be careful about the semantics here. It’s not God speaking directly but Nathan the prophet speaking on behalf of god.

That’s an interesting disclaimer. So it doesn’t count as God speaking? When the prophet says, “Thus saith the LORD God of Israel,” can we conclude that those aren’t really His words and that Nathan was just making them up? Just what distinction do this ought to be made here?

I don’t think this means God intended David to be a polygamist as much as Nathan telling David he had his choice from a large number of women “fit for a king” as well as fame and fortune, power and glory yet he chose to commit adultery.

Oh really? I don’t see any smiley faces above, so I assume you’re expecting me to swallow that hook, line and so forth? Even if he has his choice and picks one among all these wives, David already has several wives before these are offered to him. Perhaps God didn’t know about or had forgotten that he already had at least 7 wives (Abigail, Ahinoam, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah and Michal) before becoming king? Perhaps he was supposed to pick just one and divorce the current ones? Let’s be serious and take the scriptures for what they really say and not try to wrest them into something you prefer.

Now if i put this with MORMON scripture (Jacob 2:24) It really looks like it is not meant to support polygamy.

Of course it isn’t. The premise of chapters 2 and 3 of Jacob are to condemn the Nephites for seeking to justify their immorality while they full well knew that polygamy and concubinage had been forbidden among them.

I would like to see where you think the law of moses allows plural wives?

Exodus 25:5 "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

Deut 21:15-16 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, …

The second one above is interesting in that it simply makes provision for the inheritance of the children of an additional wife. There doesn’t exist the slightest hint that this is a circumstance that is condemned.

Interestingly, polygamy among Jews wasn’t illegal in Israel until 1967 -even though several Rabbis have told me that if a Sephardic Jew gets permission from his Rabbi to take an additional wife it isn’t prohibited or punished even though it’s against the law. Since this custom is apparently ancient, it’s interesting to me that Jesus didn’t openly forbid polygamy even though He did forbid putting away a wife. It almost seems as though a Jew could marry an additional wife as long as he didn’t “put away” a current one. Divorce seems to have been the big problem and polygamy doesn’t seem to have even appeared on the radar screen.

Do you believe it to be God’s law or mans law?

Either or both depending upon the circumstance.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

The original D&C which was in effect at the time of JS death contained a section that proclaimed polygamy a crime, …

Not entirely correct. The statement said that Mormons were accused of the crime of fornication and polygamy. If polygamy were to be included as a crime in that sentence it would have to read “the crimes of fornication and polygamy.”

that the LDS did NOT practice it and that the official doctrine of the LDS church was that each man should only have one wife.

Again, you’re reading it too quickly. Look at it again and you’ll see that the language is very specific only in limiting a woman to one husband while the most that can be said is that man should have at least one wife. If you don’t believe me, consider this from a former RLDS leader who left Mormonism when he learned that Joseph Smith had been a polygamist:

“Three points we wish to notice here. This statement does not call polygamy a crime but fornication. If they meant polygamy they would have said crimes of fornication and polygamy, but, reader, notice the wording, “With the CRIME of fornication, and polygamy,” again, “One man should have ONE WIFE.” It does not say he should have only one, or but one, but when it comes to the woman, “one woman but one husband.” Who cannot see the deception in this statement?” (R.C. Evans “Forty Years in the Mormon Church --Why I Left It” p. 34)

Alma

 

[Good_Daughter]

Alma 147, thank you for responding so thoroughly to my question. I hope I didn’t badger you too much.

Questions about polygamy inevitably lead me to greater questions about who has the authority to interpret Scripture. I think today’s debate in this thread (and centuries of Protestantism) illustrate the need for such authority. I find the need filled one way and you in another but I do like engaging in Mormon/Catholic dialogue as much as possible.

majick275, thanks for the strong Catholic point of view.

 

[majick275]

That’s an interesting disclaimer. So it doesn’t count as God speaking? When the prophet says, “Thus saith the LORD God of Israel,” can we conclude that those aren’t really His words and that Nathan was just making them up? Just what distinction do this ought to be made here?

I’m not making this a complete “disclaimer” but rather pointing out that Nathan is communicating to David as one man to another. Nathan is giving David God’s intent but doing so in his own words.

Oh really? I don’t see any smiley faces above, so I assume you’re expecting me to swallow that hook, line and so forth? Even if he has his choice and picks one among all these wives, David already has several wives before these are offered to him. Perhaps God didn’t know about or had forgotten that he already had at least 7 wives (Abigail, Ahinoam, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah and Michal) before becoming king? Perhaps he was supposed to pick just one and divorce the current ones? Let’s be serious and take the scriptures for what they really say and not try to wrest them into something you prefer.

sure let’s do that. All of the previous OT examples show these added wives not as covenant marriages freely entered into by both parties but as slavery and/or deceit. We see a distinct difference between moses the prophet delivering God’s commandments (the tablets) and moses the “chieftain” making civil laws. (the detailed portions of mosaic law). We see Jesus teach us that Moses permitted things because of the hardness of the people’s hearts that God did not institute. In fact God doesn’t permit moses to enter the promised land because the people are stiff necked and his leadership has been inadequate. God tells the israelites that they don’t get the promised land because they are righteous but rahter because the existing inhabitants are more wicked and because he made promises to their fathers. I would put David in this same category as being blessed in spite of his sins. I also think the Lord “tolerated” a lot more in the OT and was “commanding” less compared the OT.

Of course it isn’t. The premise of chapters 2 and 3 of Jacob are to condemn the Nephites for seeking to justify their immorality while they full well knew that polygamy and concubinage had been forbidden among them.

but that book of “scripture” appears to indicate that it wasn’t just the nephites but that these commandments had been in effect all along. Otherwise why would David and Solomon be so condemned?

Exodus 25:5 "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

good! now look at this along with th e previous chapter on divorce. This is moses the chief making law not god commanding the people. This is what Jesus was condemning as being permitted by Moses but not from God.

 

[majick275]

continued

Deut 21:15-16 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, …

The second one above is interesting in that it simply makes provision for the inheritance of the children of an additional wife. There doesn’t exist the slightest hint that this is a circumstance that is condemned.

nor does it differentiate between polygamy and serial monogamy. This also caveats “when brotheres live together”. Why would that be the case? if we look to examples (juday tamer) we se younger brothers in the same house (most likely single then). BUT…This being in the same part of the bible as all of the laws on divorce make it quite possibly the rules on inheritance where divorce and remarriage have occurred and there are children from both marriages. Again though I see this as moses the chief making civil laws instead of moses the prophet speaking the word of the lord. God didn’t seem too pleased with moses the chief or the people he was leading.

Interestingly, polygamy among Jews wasn’t illegal in Israel until 1967 -even though several Rabbis have told me that if a Sephardic Jew gets permission from his Rabbi to take an additional wife it isn’t prohibited or punished even though it’s against the law. Since this custom is apparently ancient, it’s interesting to me that Jesus didn’t openly forbid polygamy even though He did forbid putting away a wife. It almost seems as though a Jew could marry an additional wife as long as he didn’t “put away” a current one. Divorce seems to have been the big problem and polygamy doesn’t seem to have even appeared on the radar screen.

I would like to see a Talmudic reference on that if you know any rabbis. in any case, I will still claim man’s law versus Gods. The fact that God in genesis and (jesus) once again in Matthew tells us that the two become one is in MY mind a direct command to have marriage be between one man and one woman.

 

[majick275]

Not entirely correct. The statement said that Mormons were accused of the crime of fornication and polygamy. If polygamy were to be included as a crime in that sentence it would have to read “the crimes of fornication and polygamy.”

Again, you’re reading it too quickly. Look at it again and you’ll see that the language is very specific only in limiting a woman to one husband while the most that can be said is that man should have at least one wife. If you don’t believe me, consider this from a former RLDS leader who left Mormonism when he learned that Joseph Smith had been a polygamist:

“Three points we wish to notice here. This statement does not call polygamy a crime but fornication. If they meant polygamy they would have said crimes of fornication and polygamy, but, reader, notice the wording, “With the CRIME of fornication, and polygamy,” again, “One man should have ONE WIFE.” It does not say he should have only one, or but one, but when it comes to the woman, “one woman but one husband.” Who cannot see the deception in this statement?” (R.C. Evans “Forty Years in the Mormon Church --Why I Left It” p. 34)

Alma

i disagree with you here. let’s look at the exact quote and the “official” explanation:

the “scripture”

• Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition)

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)*

the “explanation”

*“Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again.”
-The Prophet Joseph Smith, May 1, 1838, as quoted in “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p. 119.
*

 

[majick275]

I would also point out that all of the married mormons prior to moving to Utah had been married in established US states (excepting some immigrants who were married in their countries of origin). ALL of those states at that time had laws against bigamy which made polygamy already against the law. Brigham Young tried to avoid this by going to Utah which was a “no man’s land” at the time and establishing “deseret” under the “law of the lord”. HOWEVER, prior to it being part of the US Utah was part of Mexico which had laws against polygamy and when Utah then became a US territory it was under federal law which first recognized the marriage statutes of of established states (making those who were married in those states in violation of the law). While Brigham Young perceived a loophole there was none. There was NEVER a time when polygamy wasn’t prohibited in the USA. The morril and edmunds-tucker acts only mandated specifics. the SCOTUS ruled polygamy was prohibited even back to colonial times.

*at common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. After the establishment of the ecclesiastical [98 U.S. 145, 165] courts, and until the time of James I., it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals, not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons.

By the statute of 1 James I. (c. 11), the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death. As this statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, it was at a very early period re-enacted, generally with some modifications, in all the colonies. - U.S. v. Reynolds, 98 U.S. 145, 164-65 (1878)*

ironically Brigham Young himself used the illegality of plural marriage to avoid the consequences of one of his “sealings”. when Ann Eliza Webb filed for “divorce” from Brigham Young and sued him for alimony in 1877. Young successfully argued that their relationship was “an ecclesiastical affair, not a legal one,” and the judge rightly ruled that since there was never any legal marriage, Webb could not file for divorce nor seek alimony.

here is a little more historical context on the “official” position of the LDS church.:

Messenger and Advocate (May 1837) Warren Cowdery editor, pg. 511
“1st. That we will have no fellowship whatever with any Elder belonging to the quorums of the Seventies who is guilty of polygamy or any offense of the kind, and who does not in all things conform to the laws of the church contained in the Bible and in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.”

Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pg. 423 (February 1, 1844)
"As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching ]Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan."

Times and Seasons, vol. 6, pg. 893-894 (May 1, 1845)
“Dear Sir: To condemn unheard, any man or set of men or their principles, on the strength of popular rumor, or the testimony of enemies, would be gross injustice. An impartial investigation should always precede condemnation. The Latter-day Saints are charged by their enemies, with the blackest crimes. Treason, murder, theft, polygamy, and adultery, are among the many crimes laid to their charge. – The press reiterates and gives publicity to these charges. Under these circumstances, it is but right, that they should be heard in their defence. I shall, therefore, in this communication, briefly examine and refute a few of the charges, for it would need a legion of writers to answer (all) the lies told about us.”

now of course we know that they were practicing polygamy but they were then doing it in secret as they publicly acknowledged that it was wrong.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I’d be happy to comment. The passage reads as follows from the KJV: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Mormons believe that marriage is absolutely essential. It’s simply a reiteration of the comment by God in creation that “It is not good that the man should be alone;” (Gen. 2:18) or 1 Cor. 11:11 “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

As has been intimated before in this thread, the LDS position is that the standing law of God is monogamy; but that He has authorized exceptions to that standing law–as in the case of the Old Testament patriarchs and in the early days of Mormonism. There was no need to address polygamy among the Corinthians because Greeks belonged to a monogamous society. While divorce was a problem, polygamy wasn’t so you’re not going to get a treatment of it in letters to Gentile converts. I don’t have any problem with the idea that the Church in the time of Paul mandated monogamy just as the LDS Church mandates monogamy today–so, I can read it from the perspective that Paul insisted not only on marriage but also on singular marriage. But Paul’s comments don’t negate the fact that Abraham was a polygamist as well as the friend of God and a prophet of God. Nor do the scriptures ever condemn specifically the fact of polygamous marriage per se. Certainly the law of Moses said the kings weren’t to “multiply wives” but neither did it say they were forbidden from *addition. *

Alma

majick275 and I are coming at you from two different angles, but if you have time for a couple more points and questions…
Why, for Mormons, is marriage absoloutely essential in light of Paul’s words in 1Cor 7:8 where he says marry if you must, being single is preferred?

1Cor 11:11 seems to refer to the interdependence of the sexes upon each other. Woman from man in the story of creation, man from woman in childbirth. Marriage is simply one part of that interdependence, don’t you think?

God’s authorized exception to the standing law on monogamy in the OT is, at best, implied. I would be hesitant to read 2 Samuel 12 as God’s approval of polygamy. God once allowed divorce and through Moses provided laws to regulate it, but that’s not the same as approving it.

Any society where divorce is a problem is not a monogamous society. They just practice serial polygamy. Early Mormons who helped restore the Church discarded the rule mandating monogamy. Were many other rules of the Apostolic Church discarded? Would the LDS Church still mandate monogamy if polygamy was legalized?

What is the difference between multiplying wives and adding? Is there a number that crosses the line?

 

[Mapi]

Matthew 19:5-6

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they TWAIN(two) shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder

 

[Mapi]

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.

Be very carefull, Mormons not only practice polygamy, but also polyandry. Some of their prophets like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young took other men wifes and make then their own

Mapi

 

[Hellisreal]

Be very carefull, Mormons not only practice polygamy, but also polyandry. Some of their prophets like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young took other men wifes and make then their own

Mapi

Is this a “sealing” in the Temple?

I did not know about polyandry. I am sure they use the “biblical” evidence for this too.

 

[Mapi]

Uhh, my English is really bad!! Well, what I wanted to say is that back in the late 1800’s some of the prophets married women that were all ready married, a very awful thing is you ask me. Joseph Smith had 30+ wives and I think at least 10 of those had husbands when he married them. Brigham Young had 50+wifes and he also took other men’s’ wife for his wife and for sure I think he even had a child with one of them. Whether or not these marriages took place in sealings in the temple I don’t know, but does it really matter? Why didn’t they sealed these women to their own husbands instead?

 

[Hellisreal]

Uhh, my English is really bad!! Well, what I wanted to say is that back in the late 1800’s some of the prophets married women that were all ready married, a very awful thing is you ask me. Joseph Smith had 30+ wives and I think at least 10 of those had husbands when he married them. Brigham Young had 50+wifes and he also took other men’s’ wife for his wife and for sure I think he even had a child with one of them. Whether or not these marriages took place in sealings in the temple I don’t know, but does it really matter? Why didn’t they sealed these women to their own husbands instead?

I am getting to the point of not caring what kind of good things one can find in that faith if this is how it got off the ground. It makes Muhhamed look tame. This is simply ridiculous. How can anyone see this as respectable? Women as mere sex outlets. Why would they need so many women?

 

[cor]

I am getting to the point of not caring what kind of good things one can find in that faith if this is how it got off the ground. It makes Muhhamed look tame. This is simply ridiculous. How can anyone see this as respectable? Women as mere sex outlets. Why would they need so many women?

Keep in mind that in Mormon theology, marriages can be forever by virtue of “sealing.” So they may have married so many not so much for the needs or wants of this life but for their eternal glory in the highest heavens. They may not even have had sex with all the women they married.

 

[Hellisreal]

Keep in mind that in Mormon theology, marriages can be forever by virtue of “sealing.” So they may have married so many not so much for the needs or wants of this life but **for their eternal glory in the **highest heavens. They may not even have had sex with all the women they married.

How do you get extra glory in heaven for extra wives?

What?

 

[Allweather]

It appears that heaven is a well-defined and complex place for Mormons. There are at least three levels of it, Terrestrial, Telestial, and Celestial. The Terrestrial level is apprently here on Earth, and though it isn’t in the highest realm, it is supposed to be a very wonderful place. Most of us “apostates” will be there. I believe that Mormons think that only people who have temple sealed marriages can access the Celestial area, which is where the sex is happening and souls being born among the polygamous groupings, which are then sent to inhabit human bodies on other worlds. I’ve probably got some of this wrong, so I hope Alma or another Mormon will help me out.

 

[Hellisreal]

Allweather,

Thanks for trying to explain it, and to be honest its more than I can comprehend. Even if Alma, who is a very polite poster could explain it to the tee, I just cant read anymore of this.

Alma, please read theology of the body. I have to leave this thread now.

Thanks and may God be with all

 

[Alma147]

majick275 and I are coming at you from two different angles, but if you have time for a couple more points and questions…
Why, for Mormons, is marriage absolutely essential in light of Paul’s words in 1Cor 7:8 where he says marry if you must, being single is preferred?

Because God said, “It is not good for man to be alone” and Paul said, “Neither is the man without the woman or the woman without the man in the Lord.” Paul’s comments in 1 Cor. 7 are qualified by the statement in verse 26 that “this is good for the present distress.” He points out in verse 29 that time is short for everyone and even those with wives would be as if they had none." I think that Paul’s comments were of a temporary exigency that did not revoke God’s teaching regarding marriage.

God’s authorized exception to the standing law on monogamy in the OT is, at best, implied. I would be hesitant to read 2 Samuel 12 as God’s approval of polygamy. God once allowed divorce and through Moses provided laws to regulate it, but that’s not the same as approving it.

True God’s allowance of something (such as winking at idol worship) doesn’t indicate His approval, but that’s because He didn’t produce a divorce or the worshipping of idols. He did, however explicitly give additional wives to David.

Were many other rules of the Apostolic Church discarded? Would the LDS Church still mandate monogamy if polygamy was legalized?

Mormons believe that their leaders are Apostolic with the same authority as those anciently. So, “discarded” might not be the proper word. They did ordain deacons who weren’t married.

I doubt the LDS Church would allow polygamy today even if it were legal. It is legal in African countries but we don’t allow polygamists to be baptized (nor divorce current wives to qualify for baptism.)

What is the difference between multiplying wives and adding? Is there a number that crosses the line?

I think Solomon crossed the line somewhere between 7 and 1,000. David already had 8 wives when God gave him Saul’s wives, so I don’t know precisely where that line might be.

Alma

 

[Art_Vanick]

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.

Hi,
My name is Art Vanick and it’s been awhile since I last posted in this forum, but I just wanted to make one or two brief points, if I may. First of all, the Book of Mormon - the Mormon “bible” speaks against polygamy, just as it doesn’t support many other Mormon “doctrines”. It was in Doctrine and Covenants and other Mormon “canon” where polygamy was either promoted and/or taught. Also, since the Book of Mormon itself is nothing more than a plagiarism of a nineteenth century unpublished novel, therefore making the book a phony, doesn’t it logically follow that any sort of religion or “doctrine” based on the Book of Mormon is equally false?

It’s just a thought.

Art