If I remember correctly in thethread Soren mentioned someone (maybe Parker) did say something along theselines. Again if IRC the*“raise up seed unto me”
- was not about population increase but about raising righteous, committed children.
I don’t always respond to everything I ought to, but I should definitely have replied to Parker on that. In my posts, I pushed a sociological case against polygamy, since the Mormon I was speaking to was claiming that polygamy was good for population increase. Yet I made clear that I intended a moral argument as well, about the relative value that a polygamous lifestyle places upon the parents of a child. Because propriety in childbearing presupposes respect for the mutual dignity of the parents, then to make an argument about raising righteous children is premature until one has shown that the dignity of the parents is protected in polygamy. Until that is done, the defender of polygamy has no foundation to make any further argument.
I stated at the outset that polygamy offends the chastity of women. The reduction of female fertility was one clear example of how it offends them. Remember that here I mean “chastity” in the broadest sense, that is, the dignity proper to a woman as a mother or potential mother. Polygamy offends this dignity because it assumes that male fertility has a higher value than female: Brigham Young thought he pleased God by having lots more children than other men, but never commented on (or ever considered?) the implications of his polygamy for the number of children his wives could have. This male preferentialism makes polygamy an intrinsically disordered marital structure, and it is therefore not an appropriate setting to raise children, righteous or otherwise. Thus the Mormon justification of polygamy fails, even if “raising up seed” is understood of raising children spiritually.
But don’t take it from me. The gospel speaks for itself on this. One very overlooked teaching in the Bible (at least among non-Catholics) is that women are equal to men as spiritual forbears. Catholics who know their Mariology already know how this is implied in verses like Gen 3:15, Luke 1:42-43, etc. Yet the single text most relevant to Mormon claims is overlooked by virtually everyone. It is Hebrews 11:11, which the KJV mistranslates: “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed.” Before I explain the correct translation of this text, and explain its importance, let’s look back at the story of Abraham and Sarah.
The Mormon commandment of plural marriage was traditionally known as the “Law of Abraham.” The theological claim is that God commanded Abraham to take multiple wives. D&C 132:34 reads:
God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
It should be obvious upon a careful reading of Gen 17 and Gal 4 that the birth of Ishmael and his ancestry of a nation did not fulfill God’s promises to Abraham. In Gen 17, God denies Abraham’s request to incorporate Ishmael into his family covenant (17:21), although covenant inclusion was the essence of God’s promise. (17:7) Moreover, in Gal 4:23, Paul distinguishes Ishmael and Isaac because Isaac was born “of the promise” and Ishmael was not. Yet how could this happen if God had commanded Abraham to take Hagar to fulfill “the promises”? The answer is that God’s promise was for Abraham and Sarah to bear children. By giving Hagar to Abraham, Sarah prompts him into an act of unbelief. The consequence is a twofold punishment: Ishmael and Hagar become outcasts, and God makes Abraham renew his covenant by circumcising himself at the age of 90 – a penitential covenant form, which mortifies the part of Abraham’s body that he used to offend God in becoming a bigamist. Hence, the story of Abraham actually opposes polygamy. In particular, it shows that polygamy was not the way that God appointed for Abraham to raise up seed for him.
St. Paul, aware of all this, and knowing that only Abraham’s descendants through Sarah were “of the promise,” sees Sarah’s spiritual paternity as equal to Abraham’s. But what do I mean by “Sarah’s spiritual paternity”? Isn’t she a mother? That is why I brought up Heb 11:11. To make clear why this verse is important, I will give it in my own strictly literal translation of the relevant section of Heb 11:11:
By faith, sterile Sarah received power to cast sperm.
The difference between this and the KJV is the difference between begetting and conceiving. The Hebrew language sharply distinguishes male and female procreative acts. Both male “begetting” and female “conception” are indicated by the same verb, but it has a completely different pattern of conjugation for each; there is a conceptual difference that makes it utterly impossible to ever confuse them. Consequently, for Paul to use a plainly masculine description of Sarah as a begetter would strike his Hebrew readers as a remarkable claim. In the first place, it shows that Paul is considering Sarah here as a spiritual ancestor, since “to cast sperm” cannot be literal for her. But it also shows that in terms of spiritual parenting, there is no distinction between her and Abraham, either in degree or in kind. God, when he swore to raise up seed to Abraham, had Sarah equally in mind. That equality of the parents is foundational to the family form that God desires as the means to grow his family. The transgression of those parents in seeking a different, polygamous way to raise up seed brought about misfortune so that they had to renew themselves in faith for the true promise to be fulfilled as God had intended.
Our Catholic friends won’t agree with this, but Jesus told this to the Jews when he said to them: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (John 10:14-16)