When did polygamy become sinful?

[Stephen168]

I don’t know dianaiad personally, but I didn’t detect this in her post. I don’t think you should try to impugn her motives. Assume the best of any poster.

I certainly agree that she made a logically invalid comparison between moral failures on the part of catholic leadership and moral failures in LDS teaching, but it’s perfectly plausible that such a thing is an honest blunder in reasoning, not a nefarious slur attempt. Assume the best.

I was responding to a poster who, like me, has seen her repeat the same claim over and over after her error in logic has been pointed out to her.

A hundred and fifty years. That’s a long time, yes, and during that time there were some very racist comments made—just as there were in many other churches, including CATHOLIC churches, and by Catholic clergy.

You claim that blacks were never told that they were less than equal by the Catholics. That’s fine and all—but if that’s so, why haven’t there been any verified black Catholic popes? (Three possibilities, very early on, but those men are as likely–more likely–to have been Roman or Arabic) Why wasn’t there a black Catholic Cardinal until FIFTY YEARS AGO?

Why, if the Catholic church is so free of racist beliefs and policies, did it take FOUR HUNDRED YEARS to get a black priest in America, and why did he have to go to Rome in order to be trained? (answer…no priests or nuns here would allow him to enroll in any seminaries here.) Why did the real 'first African American priest," (OK, he was a quarter black or less, but the African American community loves to claim him) have to hide the fact that he was black his entire life? He claimed that he was of Irish descent, and never once identified himself as African American, even though he was the son of a slave.

Religio71; 5593175:

However the difference I see is this: the Catholic Church’s priesthood has been open to all males that desire it forever. There have been black bishops for a long period of time. We not only have to look at the number of black bishops and priests, but also the percentage of such members and the timeline for evangelization of those areas. Also note that people are not “ordained” a Cardinal. The highest ordination in the Catholic Church is that of bishop. We have had black bishops for centuries.

In contrast, the LDS Church had an institutionalized doctrine of not ordaining those of African descent to the priesthood. When one thinks of the role that the priesthood plays in Mormonism, it was quite devastating spiritually. Yes, Blacks could always be members of the church, but it is through the priesthood that males fully participate in the LDS Church. Even if priests owned slaves (again, someone else can comment on that, I know nothing about it!), the Catholic Church never stated that Blacks were somehow not the same as Whites and others as to hold the priesthood and be Endowed, Sealed, and other ordinances. I remember one black LDS on the 30 year anniversary of the Priesthood Revelation video said something to the effect of “blacks coveted the priesthood, but were unable to hold it”.

dianaiad;5593349:

Not in the Americas, you haven’t. See, the problem is that if racism is a problem anywhere, then it is a problem everywhere.

Here is the difference:
The Catholic Church has always had an official policy of racial equality and condemnation of racial bigotry. Some Catholics have fallen short of that ideal. Other Catholics gave their lives and their careers defending indigenous peoples of minority races. There have always been black Catholic priests and black Catholic bishops.
The LDS church has, up until 1978, had an official policy of racism and hatred toward blacks. Their prophets and apostles spewed racist invectives against blacks and taught their followers that blacks are guilty of pre-birth sin, that they are inferior, and even that blacks are to be feared. Some LDS rose above their church and displayed tolerance and inclusiveness. An LDS bishop in Washington state in 1977 risked excommunication from the LDS church by baptizing a black man in his swimming pool and then ordaining him to the Aaronic priesthood.
When Catholics are racially inclusive, they are in harmony with the historic Catholic Church.
LDS, prior to 1978, who were racially inclusive were in opposition to their church.

The American Church is a PART of the WHOLE Church. A fallacy of composition arises when one argues from the part to the whole; ignoring the fact that what is true for the part is not necessarily true for the whole. The WHOLE Catholic Church has never been racist, but there are racist (PARTS) in the Catholic Church. In 1973, the Mormons I knew (PARTS) were not racists, but the Mormon Church (WHOLE) was racist in regards to its priesthood. I knew the difference between the PART, I knew, and the WHOLE.

 

[dianaiad]

The difference was it was AMERICAN prejudice not church doctrine.

It’s a little difficult to understand the difference when it was AMERICAN priests who vehemently opposed Father Tolton’s ordination, so that he had to go to Rome, and who gave him so very hard a time when Rome sent him back to America (and he did not want to go, understandably).

So…what we have here in Catholicism is an example of the basic doctrine being misunderstood, or perhaps even completely ignored, by its representatives?

Understandable.

One really can’t judge a belief system for the actions of those who break its rules.

But you do seem to have a fine old time doing just that to Mormonism.

 

[iepuras]

It’s a little difficult to understand the difference when it was AMERICAN priests who vehemently opposed Father Tolton’s ordination, so that he had to go to Rome, and who gave him so very hard a time when Rome sent him back to America (and he did not want to go, understandably).

So…what we have here in Catholicism is an example of the basic doctrine being misunderstood, or perhaps even completely ignored, by its representatives?

Um. I think you made the point yourself by pointing out the American priests. Take a look at apostolic Christianity globally. What was the race/nationality of priests and bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in Ethiopia? Ethiopian.

dianaiad:

Understandable.

One really can’t judge a belief system for the actions of those who break its rules.

But you do seem to have a fine old time doing just that to Mormonism.

Please provide a quote of someone on this thread doing this to Mormonism.

The problem with the LDS church and the priesthood is that it was the rule to deny blacks the priesthood. It was never the rule to do so in the Catholic Church.

 

[Sarcelle]

It’s a little difficult to understand the difference when it was AMERICAN priests who vehemently opposed Father Tolton’s ordination, so that he had to go to Rome, and who gave him so very hard a time when Rome sent him back to America (and he did not want to go, understandably).

So…what we have here in Catholicism is an example of the basic doctrine being misunderstood, or perhaps even completely ignored, by its representatives?

Understandable.

One really can’t judge a belief system for the actions of those who break its rules.

But you do seem to have a fine old time doing just that to Mormonism.

So you mean to say that polygyny and the prohibition against blacks becoming priests was all a misunderstanding of LDS doctrine?

 

[dianaiad]

So you mean to say that polygyny and the prohibition against blacks becoming priests was all a misunderstanding of LDS doctrine?

Polygamy? No.

Prohibiting people of African negroid descent from the priesthood? yeah, I think that was. After all, JS did ordain two black men to the priesthood.

The thing is, it was official policy, if not doctrine. There was a great deal of praying going on about that, for quite a long time.

Nobody can accuse Mormonism of being racist now, though. Perhaps some of the offshoot groups may still be,as some of those offshoots are still polygamous, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints?

No.

 

[Stephen168]

So you mean to say that polygyny and the prohibition against blacks becoming priests was all a misunderstanding of LDS doctrine?

The main point is that polygamy is still taught in Mormon scripture just like Mormon scripture teaches that the Book of Mormon is a history of ALL the American Indians.

Polygamy was never a teaching of Christ or the Apostles, so Joseph Smith did not ‘restore’ it, he just made it up.

 

[kimg901]

Which church is ‘ok’ with it?

How about this one: Massachusetts has the highest percentage of Catholic population: darned near 45%. Yet it has the highest (by a rather large percentage) same sex marriage rate. As well, the divorce rate, while the lowest in the nation, is low mostly because it also has the sixth lowest MARRIAGE rate. You can’t get divorced if you didn’t get married in the first place. Shack up break ups are not counted in the divorce statistics.

Now, true, if 45% of Mass residents are Catholic, then 55% are not, and presumably they don’t share Catholic beliefs; they can go merrily marrying, (or not) and divorcing (or not) and remarrying (or not) as pleases them, to whomever it pleases them.

But using the logic you just used, I can claim that the Catholic church is OK with all of it.

Or, to put this more simply: not everybody in Utah is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. Really.

…and one of the fastest way to get yourself excommunicated FROM the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints is to practice polygamy.

Sorry, the lds church. And of course the Catholic Church is not okay with it. So Mass has a 45% Catholic population? But the other % is 55 correct and there in that state SSM is okay? So the state is okay with it, not the church. By the way, who was running that state where SSM is okay? Romney correct? Hmm? But if your church says polygamy is bad then why is it still allowed in Utah?

 

[twopekinguys]

It’s a little difficult to understand the difference when it was AMERICAN priests who vehemently opposed Father Tolton’s ordination, so that he had to go to Rome, and who gave him so very hard a time when Rome sent him back to America (and he did not want to go, understandably).

So…what we have here in Catholicism is an example of the basic doctrine being misunderstood, or perhaps even completely ignored, by its representatives?

Understandable.

One really can’t judge a belief system for the actions of those who break its rules.

But you do seem to have a fine old time doing just that to Mormonism.

Time for another call for references on your statement “priests who vehemently opposed Father Tolton’s ordination”.

A simple wiki search indicates that he was rejected from every American seminary, but, the word “vehemently” is not in the article at all. (emphasis mine

In fact, it appears there was more support for him than you would like to acknowledge. Such as:

"After arriving in Quincy, Illinois, Martha, Augustus, and Charley began working at the Herris Tobacco Company where they made cigars. After Charley’s death at a young age, Augustine met**** Father Peter McGirr, an Irish-American priest, who gave him the opportunity to attend St. Peter’s parochial school during the winter months when the factory was closed. The priest’s decision was controversial in the parish. Although abolitionists were active in the town, many of Father McGirr’s parishioners objected to a black student at their children’s school. McGirr held fast and allowed Tolton to study there. Later Tolton continued studies directly with some priests.****

Doesn’t sound like major opposition to me, does it to you?

Again, source please.

 

[twopekinguys]

Diania,

We have been over this whole “black priest” thing before.

Do you remember, we did have an African Pope?

Pope Victor I, Papacy from 189-199. (He was the first bishop of Rome born in the Roman Province of Africa) per wiki

How many African/Black mormon apostles, or prophets have their been?

 

[zaffiroborant]

It’s a little difficult to understand the difference when it was AMERICAN priests who vehemently opposed Father Tolton’s ordination, so that he had to go to Rome, and who gave him so very hard a time when Rome sent him back to America (and he did not want to go, understandably).

So…what we have here in Catholicism is an example of the basic doctrine being misunderstood, or perhaps even completely ignored, by its representatives?

Understandable.

One really can’t judge a belief system for the actions of those who break its rules.

But you do seem to have a fine old time doing just that to Mormonism.

And just what rules of the LDS church were broken when every single man of African descent, from every single country around the world was denied ordination in the LDS church, while every other LDS male of any other descent was granted it, under the direction of the prophet, seer, revelator the highest authority in the LDS church?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Time for another call for references on your statement “priests who vehemently opposed Father Tolton’s ordination”.

A simple wiki search indicates that he was rejected from every American seminary, but, the word “vehemently” is not in the article at all. (emphasis mine

In fact, it appears there was more support for him than you would like to acknowledge. Such as:

"After arriving in Quincy, Illinois, Martha, Augustus, and Charley began working at the Herris Tobacco Company where they made cigars. After Charley’s death at a young age, Augustine met**** Father Peter McGirr, an Irish-American priest, who gave him the opportunity to attend St. Peter’s parochial school during the winter months when the factory was closed. The priest’s decision was controversial in the parish. Although abolitionists were active in the town, many of Father McGirr’s parishioners objected to a black student at their children’s school. McGirr held fast and allowed Tolton to study there. Later Tolton continued studies directly with some priests.****

Doesn’t sound like major opposition to me, does it to you?

Again, source please.

McGirr held fast, do we see any examples in the LDS church of people who held fast to the idea that African Americans should be treated with the same dignity as whites? I have read an exchange of letters between a member who stood fast as Father McGirr did, he was poorly treated by LDS apostles. If I remember correctly this was in the 1950’s or 1960’s.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Matthew 19 is about divorce not polygamy!

Are you claiming revelation to support your opinion in knowing what God approved of (since you aren’t citing scripture).

Matthew 19 is about marriage.

Divorce is not what causes a person to commit adultery. Divorce is stated as not legal. Therefore, a person is married and not divorced. THEN, Jesus says marrying another while already married is called, adultery.

Then, He goes on to say marriage should be as it was in the beginning. Adam and Eve are the role models for marriage. As God created them, one husband and one wife.