Poligomy

[blueadept]

I think we have a problem in regards to understanding how each church receives revelation Cowboy Pete.

The tough choice of accepting polygamy can NEVER exist in the RCC and I don’t foresee the need for the Pope to recieve revelation in regards to priests being married. I live in a ‘missionary-type’ of diocese and we went through a period of all our priests being Irish due to the over-abundance of them. Now our diocese is experiencing a flood of African and Asian priests. I don’t foresee that changing for a while… I feel confident that if the # of African/Asian priests should ever dwindle, God will simply find a different source.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Oh, if the prophet reinstituted polygamy today, LDS folks would have an issue. They had an issue when it was first instituted. They had an issue when it was taken away.

Seems to me that if you understand that homicide may be justified in certain conditions (self-defense, etc.) then it’s not that great a leap to envision conditions when polygamy might be justified. Like if someone went around murdering your men. My great-great grandmothers were widows with orphans. My great-grandfathers, their children, had stepfathers to raise them because of polygamy. Utah was the wild west. It worked. And thank God it’s not necessary or required any more.

So were, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, California, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and so on. None of these “wild west” areas needed to rely on polygamy and neither did Utah.
The taking care of widows as a reason for polygamy is refuted by none less than your own apostle John A Widtsoe.
*
“Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-Day Saints. The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church…The United States Census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church.” (“Evidences and Reconciliations,” p. 391.)*

And we have Herber C Kimball (who equated choosing another wife to buying a cow) saying the following:

*“Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp.129-30.

and again…

“I say to those who are elected to go on missions, remember they are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You under stand that. Amen”

• Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.256.*

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Yuk. HC Kimball always did have an insensitive sense of humor.

 

[blueadept]

In Kimball’s defense, the comments were meant only for the LDS priesthood (temple worthy men). I’m fairly confident that he had no intention of making the comment outside of that group where it obviously would be taken in an offensive way. You wouldn’t hear a statement like this in a General Conference setting even back in his time. I don’t believe LDS authorities back then ever envisioned the JoD ever being easily accessible to the general public like it is.

 

[zaffiroborant]

In Kimball’s defense, the comments were meant only for the LDS priesthood (temple worthy men). I’m fairly confident that he had no intention of making the comment outside of that group where it obviously would be taken in an offensive way. You wouldn’t hear a statement like this in a General Conference setting even back in his time. I don’t believe LDS authorities back then ever envisioned the JoD ever being easily accessible to the general public like it is.

Not so sure it speaks well that it wouldn’t be found offensive:shrug:

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s an interesting interpretation, but if that was Jesus’ point, don’t you think he would have been more clear? It seems to me that what you’re doing isn’t interpretation so much as what Ezra called building a hedge about the law, except with Jesus’ words. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. And I do agree that Polygamy is generally a very bad idea.

It is not an interpretation, it is what Jesus teaches.

A man who divorces and remarries another has committed adultery. Is divorce itself, under anyone’s definition, adultery? No. So, if a man is divorced, and marries another woman, why does Jesus call this adultery? Jesus is teaching, divorce is not allowed, and the man is still married. So marrying again, and being with another woman who is not his wife, is adultery.

I would try to compare this to what Mormons teach, but what Mormons teach, doesn’t make any sense whatsoever so I’m not even going to try. Something about, they think Jesus is teaching that marrying again is only adultery if the man gets divorced! As though, divorce is the act of adultery and not the act of being with another woman, even if he does call her wife.

Polygamy can’t be sinful unless we know it’s against God’s law. Don’t Catholics share our view of sin, where Sin means to knowingly violate God’s law? Can one accidentally sin?

No one can accidentally sin, but I’m not sure what that has to do with what Jesus is teaching in Matthew 19.

God is not fickle, and dose not command one thing one day, and another day something else. Man is fickle, and will put himself in the place of God, saying God desires this or that , when those desires are not God’s, but his own.

As for homicide being allowed in certain instances, Catholic teaching on morality looks at the intent of the person in relationship to moral teaching. Is a person who is defending himself a murderer? Not if the person’s intent is defense of life, either one’s own, or that of another. A person who’s intent is the willful taking of a life, does commit the sin of murder.

I highly recommend the book, “Morality: The Catholic View”, published by St. Augustine Press.

 

[blueadept]

Not so sure it speaks well that it wouldn’t be found offensive:shrug:

I remember President GBH making a comment in a Priesthood Meeting (during GC, but for men only) and he was challenging the men in getting their college education degrees and that the statistics showed that women were more successful in receiving their degrees than men. I’m paraphrasing but it was something like ‘what?..you want to marry someone with a higher education than you?’ I was amazed at how I seemed to be the only one who took offense at the comment and the LDS men did not.

IMO, it’s sort of like faithful Catholics never taking offense at anything the Pope would say. The LDS faithful always show the same courtesy in regards to their prophet even if everyone else would take offense.

 

[blueadept]

I would try to compare this to what Mormons teach, but what Mormons teach, doesn’t make any sense whatsoever so I’m not even going to try. Something about, they think Jesus is teaching that marrying again is only adultery if the man gets divorced! As though, divorce is the act of adultery and not the act of being with another woman, even if he does call her wife.

IMO, what’s important is that you keep in mind how they view a temple marriage versus a civil marriage even though they say a civil marriage is extremely important to respect.

My LDS wife divorced me last year (for religious differences) and it was a civil divorce. For her and her desire is to find an LDS worthy husband to be sealed in the Temple, that marriage would be for ‘all time and eternity’ where my marriage was ‘for this time only.’

Of course the Catholic position (it was blessed in the RCC) is that I am married even though I have a civil divorce and I believe I have no case for an annulment. Oh well, one is right and one is wrong. I just find it amusing that she’s looking for a LDS husband while I’m finding ways to honor my marriage vows regardless of what she does…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t see how they view it differently. Their polygamous marriages were temple marriages, and justified by saying there was no divorce, therefore there was no adultery. That is why I point out that divorce has never been defined as adultery, by anyone, including the Catholic Church.

Adultery is the act of being unfaithful to one’s spouse, divorce in and of itself is not adultery. Jesus taught, marrying another woman was adultery by the very fact that the divorce was never valid in the eyes of God, therefore, the man was still married. It is a married man, who is in a relationship with another woman, who commits adultery.

A polygamous man is by definition already married, and by entering into a relationship with another, commits adultery.

BTW, hey, it’s me…Rebecca.

 

[blueadept]

saemo!!! I guess I should have known…. I know you understand my situation…

BTW, I’m starting my discernship of being a permanent deacon… When one door closes, another door opens.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hey Rob. You have been in my prayers, and I have always appreciated yours. I will continue to pray for your continuing discernment and growth in service.

Peace to you my friend.

 

[PbloPicasso]

RebeccaJ Unfortunately, that is not what the scriptures say. But it is what Jesus teaches and what he taught to His disciples, who in turn passed it down through apostolic succession. You seem to fail to understand sacred tradition by allowing your own interpretation to run a muck. The scriptures seem to imply, but not specifically state the fact that marriage is limited to one man and one woman for life. I’ll consult with someone who specializes in sacred scripture even though I have a pretty sound and vast study of the scriptures since I was a bible only Christian most of my life. I studied through the entire written canon by the time I graduated from high school and since then can claim up to 30 to 50 more times. I was preparing to become a preacher since we have several in our family.

Sacred Scripture exists becasue of sacred tradition. An understanding of this is what led me to the Catholic Church. Initially I was feeling drawn to the Orthodox Church though. There are only a few issues I’m dealing with today that keep me wondering about Orthodox Christianity, but that’s not up for discussion. I too am enrolled in courses leading to the diaconate, but that is up to God and the ordinary to decide. I do not like to add words at all to scripture, mostly because of my faithful devotion to things taught me in the Church of Christ. I can not get myself to let something like this go without objecting to spinning scripture to mean what we want it to mean. However, learning that a teaching authority carries the apostolic succession has helped me understand salvation history in an entirely different light than what I was accustomed to. You might say it took me 45 years to read my current commitment to my faith, Catholic, leaning towards the eastern church. Eastern Catholicism is a very beautiful and ancient tradition that I love more than the Latin Rite.

I believe we believe the same teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue. But I believe my answer is more precisely the reason we learn that polygamy is not acceptable in the eyes of God, in spite of the fact that David and Solomon had multiple wives and concubines. This has always been disturbing to me to know. I’ve yet to resolve this issue in my Christian faith. In fact, it’s been a source of doubt, which ultimately led me to accepting the teaching authority of the Church of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, not the previous faith I belong to established by Alexander Campbell and his followers that led to another break in 1906 forming what we now know as the “Church of Christ”, of which most of my family belong.

Hello, yes, Jesus does teach that marrying more than one wife is adultery, in Matthew 19. Mormons read this as only speaking about divorce, but it isn’t, it is about marrying again after a divorce. Divorce not being valid, means a person who thinks they have divorced, and marries again, is still actually married to his wife. So, Jesus is teaching here against divorce, by teaching that having more than one wife is adultery.

Mormons will then point to OT polygamy, saying God commanded polygamy, but God has never commanded polygamy. He allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was never commanded.

Jesus sets this straight, by teaching, marriage was instituted by God at the beginning, as one man and one woman, Adam and Eve. Mormons ignore this teaching, entirely, believing that God has a pragmatic morality to teach us, one that changes with the facts and knowledge of circumstances. Catholic morality is, something that is immoral is always immoral. Circumstance cannot make an immoral act, moral.