Mormonism, Polygamy, and Warren Jeffs

[Cowboy_Pete]

I think that Charlamagne’s wives were at least successive.

Nope. Some were successive, some were simultaneous.

How many wives did Joseph Smith have at the time of his death?

No one knows, but it’s fairly clear that before we had tighter regulations in place, that a bunch of women had themselves sealed to Joseph Smith posthumously. Since JS never publicly taught the doctrine during his life, Brigham Young had a very hard time convincing the body of the church that Joseph Smith had ever practiced it, so if some woman came forward claiming that JS had married her, BY probably didn’t look into the claim very carefully.

That’s one thing we really could stand to learn from your church … you’re very rigorous about examining miraculous and other historical claims. Your leaders don’t sit back and accept any story that seems to confirm the faith. Our church fortunately learned that by the time that the Salamander letters came around, but there are lots of embarrassments from the early church when we were altogether too trusting of folks that claim that JS said this or did that. A lot of very questionable hearsay has been compiled into “the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith” and I wish the church would redact out the unconfirmed statements.

 

[Denise1957]

Nope. Some were successive, some were simultaneous.

No one knows, but it’s fairly clear that before we had tighter regulations in place, that a bunch of women had themselves sealed to Joseph Smith posthumously. Since JS never publicly taught the doctrine during his life, Brigham Young had a very hard time convincing the body of the church that Joseph Smith had ever practiced it, so if some woman came forward claiming that JS had married her, BY probably didn’t look into the claim very carefully.

That’s one thing we really could stand to learn from your church … you’re very rigorous about examining miraculous and other historical claims. Your leaders don’t sit back and accept any story that seems to confirm the faith. Our church fortunately learned that by the time that the Salamander letters came around, but there are lots of embarrassments from the early church when we were altogether too trusting of folks that claim that JS said this or did that. A lot of very questionable hearsay has been compiled into “the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith” and I wish the church would redact out the unconfirmed statements.

How do you know that some of Charlemage’s wives were simultaneous? I mean, what sources do you have or use that proves this?

 

[Stephen168]

How do you know that some of Charlemage’s wives were simultaneous? I mean, what sources do you have or use that proves this?

And when was he made the Magisterium of the Church?

 

[Denise1957]

And when was he made the Magisterium of the Church?

Your question here is probably a better one, ultimately, than mine. It’s just that non-Catholics may sincerely believe something about Catholic history which isn’t true. I’m wondering if it’s a legit Catholic source that’s being used for this assertion, or a non-Catholic one which is more subject to error.

 

[Stephen168]

Your question here is probably a better one, ultimately, than mine. It’s just that non-Catholics may sincerely believe something about Catholic history which isn’t true. I’m wondering if it’s a legit Catholic source that’s being used for this assertion, or a non-Catholic one which is more subject to error.

Anti-Catholics believe a lot of Catholic history that isn’t true. I try to be clear about Catholic Church teaching and the practices of individual Catholics. Anti-Catholics like to blend the two. Polygamy was a non-Christian teaching of the Latter-Day-Saint Movement and is still practiced by some.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Your question here is probably a better one, ultimately, than mine. It’s just that non-Catholics may sincerely believe something about Catholic history which isn’t true. I’m wondering if it’s a legit Catholic source that’s being used for this assertion, or a non-Catholic one which is more subject to error.

I’ve never seen that fact in any LDS source, btw. mormons don’t fill up blogs with anti-Catholic attacks, misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine, and gloatings over various inconsistencies and failings; when we get together, we mostly talk about our own doctrine and lives. I thought it was general knowledge … I’ll fish for the source.

In any event, I didn’t mean it as an attack on the Catholic church; I was questioning whether polygamy is inherently “unchristian.” Where do you get that connection? How is polygamy, say, less Christian than divorce? When did your church ban polygamy, and based on what canonical authority?

My understanding is that even today you will allow polygamous families in Africa to be baptized, which is a more liberal policy than what’s in my church.

 

[Denise1957]

I’ve never seen that fact in any LDS source, btw. mormons don’t fill up blogs with anti-Catholic attacks, misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine, and gloatings over various inconsistencies and failings; when we get together, we mostly talk about our own doctrine and lives. I thought it was general knowledge … I’ll fish for the source.

In any event, I didn’t mean it as an attack on the Catholic church; I was questioning whether polygamy is inherently “unchristian.” Where do you get that connection? How is polygamy, say, less Christian than divorce? When did your church ban polygamy, and based on what canonical authority?

My understanding is that even today you will allow polygamous families in Africa to be baptized, which is a more liberal policy than what’s in my church.

Pete, I mean no disrespect, but you have the annoying tendency of not answering questions; but instead, you just ask more questions yourself. I’m probably not the only one who sees this as deflection. Not that I haven’t done this myself, at times, but I try not to most of the time.

You could not provide a source for you statement about Charlemage having simultaneous wives. fine.

Pete, when I first began investigating Catholicism, before any intention of conversion, I was struck by how the Church places such a great emphasis on the 8th Commandment. I had always thought, as a Protestant, that Truth is somewhat subjective. It was a real eye-opener for me. That, and many other things as well.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

You could not provide a source for you statement about Charlemage having simultaneous wives. fine.

I commend your standing up for the 8th Commandment. If I’m in error about Charlemagne, and no one’s managed to get me banned, then I will apologize. But please understand that I didn’t mean to accuse Charlemagne of something evil at all, let alone to falsely accuse him. Two of my own ancestresses were plural wives to different husbands, and I don’t think that what they did was a sin. They had children to raise, their husbands were killed, there were few men in the church, and their children (including my ancestors) needed a father. They did the best they could.

… It appears that I may have misread the wikipedia, since that shows only five wives, who were sequential. He also had five known concubines, who were at the same time as his wives. My apologies, and thank you for the correction.

Pete, when I first began investigating Catholicism, before any intention of conversion, I was struck by how the Church places such a great emphasis on the 8th Commandment. I had always thought, as a Protestant, that Truth is somewhat subjective. It was a real eye-opener for me. That, and many other things as well.

Interesting that you should say that, since most of the falsehoods floating around this forum about the LDS church originated from overzealous Protestant Evangelicals.

You realize that your musing about my questions could also be seen as a deflection from my question that:

I was questioning whether polygamy is inherently “unchristian.” Where do you get that connection? How is polygamy, say, less Christian than divorce? When did your church ban polygamy, and based on what canonical authority?

 

[Denise1957]

I commend your standing up for the 8th Commandment. If I’m in error about Charlemagne, and no one’s managed to get me banned, then I will apologize. But please understand that I didn’t mean to accuse Charlemagne of something evil at all, let alone to falsely accuse him. Two of my own ancestresses were plural wives to different husbands, and I don’t think that what they did was a sin. They had children to raise, their husbands were killed, there were few men in the church, and their children (including my ancestors) needed a father. They did the best they could.

… It appears that I may have misread the wikipedia, since that shows only five wives, who were sequential. He also had five known concubines, who were at the same time as his wives. My apologies, and thank you for the correction.

Interesting that you should say that, since most of the falsehoods floating around this forum about the LDS church originated from overzealous Protestant Evangelicals.

You realize that your musing about my questions could also be seen as a deflection from my question that:

Thank you for you correcting your statement about Charlemagne. The reason that I stand up for the 8th Commandment is because that’s what the Catholic Church does. I learned it from her.

I don’t think it was myself who said something to you about polygamy being inherently unChristian. I have to run to work now, and don’t have time to check, but I don’t think it was me. Keep in mind, though, that it’s not our opinion as Catholics on this board that matters here on this subject. It’s what the Catholic Church teaches that counts.

 

[SteveVH]

Where do you get that connection? How is polygamy, say, less Christian than divorce? When did your church ban polygamy, and based on what canonical authority?

The Church, to my knowledge, has never had to ban polygamy. It has never been a practice in our Church. And why the comparison to divorce? Our Church has never allowed divorce either. It has been the most staunch critic of divorce.

My understanding is that even today you will allow polygamous families in Africa to be baptized, which is a more liberal policy than what’s in my church.

These are polygamists in the process of converting. They are not allowed to remain in polygamy. They must choose one wife, even though they are required to continue financial support for the other women and children who were victims of this relationship. The Church would never withhold baptism from one wishing to enter the Church, but that person, especially in a case like this, must, at the same time, turn away from his former life, if that life was lived counter to Church teaching.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

"And why the comparison to divorce? "

Because there are many Christian churches that allow divorce, and you don’t say that they aren’t Christian.

They are not allowed to remain in polygamy. They must choose one wife

Are you certain of that? Can you source it?

Thank you!

 

[zaffiroborant]

"And why the comparison to divorce? "

Because there are many Christian churches that allow divorce, and you don’t say that they aren’t Christian.

They are not allowed to remain in polygamy. They must choose one wife

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

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.

And from the Council of Trent, session 24

CANON II.-If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Well, they can do that. You can do it too, if it tickles your fancy. We don’t dedicate long blogs to yapping about how the FLDS aren’t really Mormons. But in my opinion, they aren’t; they don’t follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, not do they follow the spirit of the religion taught by JS.

But then, I’m more interested in protecting the victims of their abuse, while some of you would rather just use them to smear us.

Do you know any mormons?

Do you know any pligs?

If you did, you’d recognize there was a pretty huge difference.

FLDS are just as entitled to the name Mormon as Mormons are entitled to the name Christian.

 

[SteveVH]

"And why the comparison to divorce? "

Because there are many Christian churches that allow divorce, and you don’t say that they aren’t Christian.

Are you certain of that? Can you source it?

Thank you!

My information comes from my priest. This was brought up in our men’s group and I am giving you the explanation I received from him. I’m sure the information is available somewhere on line. His explanation makes very good sense to me and I have no reason to doubt him. The Church would never allow polygamy among any of its members, however there is the problem of what do you do with multiple families, now without a father? Out of basic human charity, they cannot just be left to fend for themselves, so these fathers must continue to support all of their families and continue to be a father to their children. But they are only allowed one wife. Africa is a big deal in the Church right now. We have an unusual amount of priests coming out of there currently and filling some of the shortages in America. Who would of have thought?

By the way, I don’t remember the thread, but you asked if someone would start a thread concerning the acceptance of non-Catholic baptisms. I did. Hope to see your comments there.

 

[KathleenGee]

Cowboy Pete,

If you want to quote Catholic sources, you best go to Catholic sources directly. As i told you on another thread, there are devious teachers in your religion now using our beliefs against us, and without context.

I see some of these Mormon sophists are now bringing some intellectual thought into Mormonism, but I see in them a dishonesty, a real disconnect regarding integrity and wilfull disregard for the context of our beliefs in misrepresenting Catholicism to Mormon believers.

Don’t think for a minute we don’t realize the more sophisticated Mormons glean our posts to further study our beliefs so they can come back to refute us.

If you want to come on CAF to share Mormonism, fine, but do not come to CAF to promote false ideas about our Catholicism.

Joseph Smith and Bringham Young were polygamists.

Early Christians were not sexually indulgent like modern people today. Sex was used primarily for procreation. At earliest gatherings in Rome, oaths were made to not lie, steal, or commit adultery.

In contrast to ancient times and paganism, Christ called us to one spouse and this partnership was to last until death do us part. Mormonism is trying to take over Christianity by baptizing the dead in its temples where alot of the money from members go. To have multiple partners is to reject the teachings of Christ.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool people all of the time.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

And from the Council of Trent, session 24

Thank you! Do you have anything earlier? Since folks here have claimed that antipolygamy was part of the Church since the very beginning, and one presumes that beginning was earlier than the Council of Trent, wouldn’t you say?

Kathleen:

If you want to come on CAF to share Mormonism, fine, but do not come to CAF to promote false ideas about our Catholicism. … You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool people all of the time.

Kathleen, I hope you will eventually recognize that I have no intent to fool anyone, to promote false ideas about Catholicism, or even to proselytize Mormonism.

I originally came here to correct others’ false ideas about Mormonism, and I think I’ve accomplished that to some extent, but I’ve also taken on a higher mission of correcting my own false ideas about Catholicism. I thought that I was educated about Catholicism, and the last couple of days have been humbling. Thank you for your patience with me.

If you want to quote Catholic sources, you best go to Catholic sources directly.

Absolutely. I hope to leave here with a better overview of Catholic sources; I’ve been asking for some time for a good reference for an online Catholic Bible, for example.

Don’t think for a minute we don’t realize the more sophisticated Mormons glean our posts to further study our beliefs so they can come back to refute us.

I do indeed study Catholic doctrine with the purpose of refuting anti-mormon hate literature, but not with the intent of converting Catholics to the LDS church. For example, I think that Catholic sources on Heresy clearly demonstrate that the accusations that the LDS church is not Christian, are evangelical protestant nonsense. It would not surprise me if some of those promoting that nonsense here were actually evangelicals. They do sometimes come on LDS sites pretending to be mormons; don’t they do that here?

 

[KathleenGee]

Cowboy Pete,

How long have you been a Mormon? Because you have been taught to study things in a certain way…surrounding the convictions of Joseph Smith.

I am thankful that you are sharing with us that Mormonism doesn’t uphold anti-Catholic beliefs … or rituals as before.

Christianity has never taught polygamy and in my entire life, I have never heard of any Catholic or Christian community promoting polygamy, including Jesus Christ.

I also am aware of Mormonism’s work to become more standardized among Christians and to find its place with us.

But the entire construct of Mormonism and how its history has started has changed all the time whereas Catholicism and mainline Christianity drawn from its roots have not. And I do not enter into any forums or blogs. I am only on CAF.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Cowboy Pete,

How long have you been a Mormon?

Since I was baptized at 8 years old, over 35 years ago.

Christianity has never taught polygamy and in my entire life, I have never heard of any Catholic or Christian community promoting polygamy, including Jesus Christ.

May I assume that you are less than 1650 years old and do not remember times before the Nicene Counsel?

Because you have been taught to study things in a certain way…surrounding the convictions of Joseph Smith.

You are absolutely correct. I have been raised in my own religious point of view and am doubtlessly biased. Please view everything that I say accordingly, even though I do hope you will conclude that I am not a liar.

I am thankful that you are sharing with us that Mormonism doesn’t uphold anti-Catholic beliefs … or rituals as before.

Prejudice takes a long time to die, but everything that I get from my church leadership towards yours is as generous and respectful as what I see from your official church statements about my own people. I pray that as peoples that we will eventually come to the mutual respect and tolerance that our leaders clearly are trying to teach us.

I also am aware of Mormonism’s work to become more standardized among Christians and to find its place with us.

To some extent that’s true. On the other hand, with the current Proclamation to the World regarding the family, we’re emphasizing the very doctrines that set us aside from other Christian churches, such as the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother, eternal families, premortal life … so we’re not trying to sweep our differences under the rug. We are however evaluating which of our differences comes from God, and which comes from our own errors and vanity. I may be in error, but I’d personally like to see the Church engage in more celebration of the holy cross in its architecture, etc.

God bless you,

Peter

 

[KathleenGee]

Peter,

Good for you, and God bless you!..

But please learn Catholicism from our sources, especially catechism. Otherwise it is seriously compromised…OK?

Blessings to you and your family, from mine as well.

 

[mwok]

Thank you! Do you have anything earlier? Since folks here have claimed that antipolygamy was part of the Church since the very beginning, and one presumes that beginning was earlier than the Council of Trent, wouldn’t you say?

Matthew 22:23-30

23 That day some Sadducees – who deny that there is a resurrection – approached him and they put this question to him,

24 'Master, Moses said that if a man dies childless, his brother is to marry the widow, his sister-in-law, to raise children for his brother.

25 Now we had a case involving seven brothers; the first married and then died without children, leaving his wife to his brother;

26 the same thing happened with the second and third and so on to the seventh,

27 and then last of all the woman herself died.

28 Now at the resurrection, whose wife among the seven will she be, since she had been married to them all?’

29 Jesus answered them, 'You are wrong, because you understand neither the scriptures nor the power of God.

30 For at the resurrection men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven.

Notice in this passage a brother died before the woman married the next.

I’ve bolded verse 30 to point out the celestial marriage debate.