When did polygamy become sinful?

[PaulDupre1]

Given that the secularists are on the attack to eliminate any Christian ideas of marriage from the public square, I wonder how long it will be before they legalize polygamy in the USA? Because polygamy usually appears as “sexist”, the argument will be that one woman can now have two husbands, if she and they agree, with birth control and paternity verification now in place. Legal restrictions on this, and incest, will disappear within a decade I predict. And I could guess the same denominations that jumped on the gay marriage badwagon will jump on this one, too.

Okay, now I’m really scared.

Paul (formerly LDS , now happily Catholic)

 

[iepuras]

It was abolished, not set aside temporarily.

This statement is false.

Plural wives is still very much a doctrine of the LDS church. Section 132 is still in the Doctrine & Covenants. It is simply not currently practiced for the most part.

Mormons believe in marriage for time and all eternity. There are two LDS apostles that are currently sealed to more than one woman (Dallin Oakes and Russell Nelson). Of course, the first wives have passed away. However, in the context of Mormon beliefs on marriage, these men are married to two women. Within the Mormon context, they are in a polygynous marriage with two women.

I even know of one LDS man in good standing in the LDS church who is sealed in the temple for time and all eternity to two living women. He is legally divorced from his first wife, but their sealing (marriage for time and all eternity) has not been cancelled. In fact, his first wife has tried to get her sealing to him cancelled, but LDS leadership will not do so because she has not legally remarried to an LDS man to whom she can be sealed. Granted, this man is not living as husband and wife with both women. However, according to Mormon beliefs, he is married for time and all eternity to two women (much to the chagrin of the second wife).

Will the LDS church bring back polygamy as an active practice should it become legal in the United States? I’m not entirely sure. When I was LDS, I was taught that polygyny would be restored during the Millenium after the Second Coming of Jesus and that it is allowed in the celestial kingdom. So maybe not before the Second Coming.

So from an eternal perspective in an LDS context, polygyny in the LDS church was never abolished but only set aside for the time being.

 

[kimg901]

Polygamy is still practiced in Utah (Bluffdale, Draper & Riverton areas). You see them all the time. Are they arrested for practicing polygamy or excommunicated? Not a chance. Which means the church is still okay with it. Sick if you ask me.

 

[dianaiad]

Polygamy is still practiced in Utah (Bluffdale, Draper & Riverton areas). You see them all the time. Are they arrested for practicing polygamy or excommunicated? Not a chance. Which means the church is still okay with it. Sick if you ask me.

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.

 

[manualman]

…true courage isn’t holding fast against severe opposition. True courage, and true honor, is doing the right thing even when one’s enemies will see it as a ‘win’ for their side.

For instance…why did it take the Catholics over three hundred years to ordain a black priest in the USA…and even then had to do it in Rome? Why did it take another two decades to ordain a second one? Do YOU think that this was the result of political pressure? If so, which was the action taken due to political pressure; the ordination…or the years in which no man of African descent in the US WAS ordained?

On the surface, this is quite an effective counter. But only on the surface. What you’ve proven both here and with later examples is that catholics don’t always (one might even say often) live up to what our faith holds up as ideal. That’s kinda the point. Humans are sinful and fallen and need a Savior.

But there is a universe of difference between showing that the behavior of one group (even the leadership of that group) is flawed and showing that the TEACHINGS of another group are flawed. I’m a bit confused right now as to whether the LDS teaches polygamy to be innately immoral or not as I’m hearing conflicting things. But it sounds to me like the LDS considers Joseph Smith’s polygamy to be perfectly acceptable and moral while they’d condemn someone today who attempted it.

That’s pretty different from the way catholics see the polygamy of Abraham or King David. We understand the action to always have been inherently immoral but that some of the earliest followers of God didn’t yet comprehend that evil and so their culpability for their sin is greatly reduced.

 

[Stephen168]

This statement is false.

Plural wives is still very much a doctrine of the LDS church. Section 132 is still in the Doctrine & Covenants. It is simply not currently practiced for the most part.

Mormons believe in marriage for time and all eternity. There are two LDS apostles that are currently sealed to more than one woman (Dallin Oakes and Russell Nelson). Of course, the first wives have passed away. However, in the context of Mormon beliefs on marriage, these men are married to two women. Within the Mormon context, they are in a polygynous marriage with two women.

I even know of one LDS man in good standing in the LDS church who is sealed in the temple for time and all eternity to two living women. He is legally divorced from his first wife, but their sealing (marriage for time and all eternity) has not been cancelled. In fact, his first wife has tried to get her sealing to him cancelled, but LDS leadership will not do so because she has not legally remarried to an LDS man to whom she can be sealed. Granted, this man is not living as husband and wife with both women. However, according to Mormon beliefs, he is married for time and all eternity to two women (much to the chagrin of the second wife).

Will the LDS church bring back polygamy as an active practice should it become legal in the United States? I’m not entirely sure. When I was LDS, I was taught that polygyny would be restored during the Millenium after the Second Coming of Jesus and that it is allowed in the celestial kingdom. So maybe not before the Second Coming.

So from an eternal perspective in an LDS context, polygyny in the LDS church was never abolished but only set aside for the time being.

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.

 

[Stephen168]

But there is a universe of difference between showing that the behavior of one group (even the leadership of that group) is flawed and showing that the TEACHINGS of another group are flawed.

Yes. Dianaiad knows this but the only way she can defend Mormonism is to try and destroy Catholicism; but it is always the same irrational attempt.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes. Dianaiad knows this but the only way she can defend Mormonism is to try and destroy Catholicism; but it is always the same irrational attempt.

I have never once been disrespectful of Catholic teachings or Catholics. Ever. I’ve been on the internet for twenty or more years, under various names: dianaiad and naiadna, and you are free to do any sort of search you wish. You will not find even ONE post from me that is disrespectful of Catholic beliefs. You WILL find me solidly on the side of Catholics when they find themselves the targets of attacks from others, when your teachings are misrepresented.

In other words, I have never done to you what you all do to me and my beliefs on a regular basis.

I do not misrepresent your beliefs. I do not tell you what you ‘really’ believe and argue with you about how ‘immoral’ and/or '‘wrong’ it is.

And I REALLY resent your claim that I do.

 

[twopekinguys]

I have never once been disrespectful of Catholic teachings or Catholics. Ever. I’ve been on the internet for twenty or more years, under various names: dianaiad and naiadna, and you are free to do any sort of search you wish. You will not find even ONE post from me that is disrespectful of Catholic beliefs. You WILL find me solidly on the side of Catholics when they find themselves the targets of attacks from others, when your teachings are misrepresented.

In other words, I have never done to you what you all do to me and my beliefs on a regular basis.

I do not misrepresent your beliefs. I do not tell you what you ‘really’ believe and argue with you about how ‘immoral’ and/or '‘wrong’ it is.

And I REALLY resent your claim that I do.

That is not entirely true. I specifically remember one of your posts (prior to your forced hiatus) that had to do with you using a crude/disrespectful example of a “Bishop in his regalia going to a strip club.”

You also know that as part of moderation, offending posts here are often removed.

Try again.

Correction:

Your example was a Cardinal. Read it in this thread.

 

[zaffiroborant]

For instance…why did it take the Catholics over three hundred years to ordain a black priest in the USA…and even then had to do it in Rome? Why did it take another two decades to ordain a second one? Do YOU think that this was the result of political pressure? If so, which was the action taken due to political pressure; the ordination…or the years in which no man of African descent in the US WAS ordained?

There is a bit of difference here, in the Catholic church one has to want to be a priest, and has to give up a lot to be one. In the LDS church every male over 12 is a priest, prior to 1978 the world wide policy was no one of African descent could be a priest. At least African Americans could appeal to Rome and be ordained.

 

[dianaiad]

That is not entirely true. I specifically remember one of your posts (prior to your forced hiatus) that had to do with you using a crude/disrespectful example of a “Bishop in his regalia going to a strip club.”

You also know that as part of moderation, offending posts here are often removed.

Try again.

Correction:

Your example was a Cardinal. Read it in this thread.

Yes. you need to read the post to which that was a response. The example was meant to be outrageous…an impossible example of something that simply would not happen; no Cardinal was mentioned. Indeed, it was given as an example of something that WOULD NOT HAPPEN, as unbelievable an example of egregious behavior as I could think of. It was given as a counter example of an accusation by one of your members of having seen a real, specific, LDS apostle doing much the same thing.

At least my example was meant to be unbelievable, because I knew…and expected that the readers would also know, that this wouldn’t happen.

but y’all didn’t have any problems at all with M accusing a specific, very real, LDS apostle of acting every inch that badly, did you?

Did SHE get called on the carpet for lying?

No. I got called for calling her on it, by giving an equally outrageous example of a fictitious Cardinal, to illustrate just how outrageous an accusation she was making. there was nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING, disrespectful to the Catholic church in that post. Indeed, quite the opposite, since the example was of something that almost certainly would not happen.

 

[dianaiad]

There is a bit of difference here, in the Catholic church one has to want to be a priest, and has to give up a lot to be one. In the LDS church every male over 12 is a priest, prior to 1978 the world wide policy was no one of African descent could be a priest. At least African Americans could appeal to Rome and be ordained.

Are you actually claiming that African Americans don’t WANT to be priests? Really? That for three centuries…and even now…only white men want to be priests?

That they never did, and that’s why none were ordained for three hundred years?

True, I suppose they could appeal to Rome and be ordained; indeed, that is eventually what happened. However, I am strongly reminded of the Bard here, and will paraphrase a conversation that went":

Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

So…an African American…if you could find one that wanted to be a priest, that is…could appeal to Rome and be ordained.

Why so can I, and so can any person, but
Will Rome answer when you appeal?

Evidently…slow communication, I suppose, it took three hundred years for Rome to listen to one.

It took us considerably less time. After that first appeal, it took the Catholic church nearly fifty years to have more than one African American priest. African Americans are still woefully under represented in the priesthood, going by population percentage. IS the church doing yeoman’s work in overcoming centuries of racism and discrimination? yep, it is, and all honor to you all for doing so.

As well, it shouldn’t have taken us a hundred years, either, but it did, and when it happened for us, it happened all in one morning. All done and settled.

By the way, the priesthood is not all that automatic in the LDS church. One really does have to want it, and earn the right to it.

Are Catholics and Mormons different? Sure. We are. The processes are different. But you do not have the moral right to look down your noses at Mormons. Not over this one.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Are you actually claiming that African Americans don’t WANT to be priests? Really? That for three centuries…and even now…only white men want to be priests?

That they never did, and that’s why none were ordained for three hundred years?

True, I suppose they could appeal to Rome and be ordained; indeed, that is eventually what happened. However, I am strongly reminded of the Bard here, and will paraphrase a conversation that went":

So…an African American…if you could find one that wanted to be a priest, that is…could appeal to Rome and be ordained.

Why so can I, and so can any person, but
Will Rome answer when you appeal?

Evidently…slow communication, I suppose, it took three hundred years for Rome to listen to one.

It took us considerably less time. After that first appeal, it took the Catholic church nearly fifty years to have more than one African American priest. African Americans are still woefully under represented in the priesthood, going by population percentage. IS the church doing yeoman’s work in overcoming centuries of racism and discrimination? yep, it is, and all honor to you all for doing so.

As well, it shouldn’t have taken us a hundred years, either, but it did, and when it happened for us, it happened all in one morning. All done and settled.

By the way, the priesthood is not all that automatic in the LDS church. One really does have to want it, and earn the right to it.

Are Catholics and Mormons different? Sure. We are. The processes are different. But you do not have the moral right to look down your noses at Mormons. Not over this one.

The difference was it was AMERICAN prejudice not church doctrine.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I’m a bit confused right now as to whether the LDS teaches polygamy to be innately immoral or not as I’m hearing conflicting things. But it sounds to me like the LDS considers Joseph Smith’s polygamy to be perfectly acceptable and moral while they’d condemn someone today who attempted it.

No, the LDS church does not view polygamy as inherently immoral. For Catholics and other orthodox Christians, polygamy is inherently immoral; the act itself is sinful because of what it is. In contrast, for LDS, the problem is not polygamy per se, but whether God commands it or not. Since 1890, they believe that God gave a revelation discontinuing the practice. So, it isn’t that it is wrong/sinful inherently, it is that it is not supposed to be done today.

Also, as someone already mentioned, vestiges of polygamy can be seen today, with the sealing rules for men vs women (men can be sealed to multiple women, i.e. if the wife dies, they can be sealed to another without getting a sealing cancellation, while women must get a sealing cancellation before being sealed to another man after the first husband dies).

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, the LDS church does not view polygamy as inherently immoral. For Catholics and other orthodox Christians, polygamy is inherently immoral; the act itself is sinful because of what it is. In contrast, for LDS, the problem is not polygamy per se, but whether God commands it or not. Since 1890, they believe that God gave a revelation discontinuing the practice. So, it isn’t that it is wrong/sinful inherently, it is that it is not supposed to be done today.

Also, as someone already mentioned, vestiges of polygamy can be seen today, with the sealing rules for men vs women (men can be sealed to multiple women, i.e. if the wife dies, they can be sealed to another without getting a sealing cancellation, while women must get a sealing cancellation before being sealed to another man after the first husband dies).

These are not vestiges of polygamy it shows that polygamy is alive and well in the LDS church. Since LDS believe marriage, with all it’s Earthly connotations, continues in the highest level of heaven, polygamy will be practiced in the “Celestial Kingdom” it has to be because many LDS men are now and have been in the past, married to more than one woman. If I am not mistaken current LDS apostles are married eternally to more than one woman, in LDS teaching they will be polygamously married in the CK.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Are you actually claiming that African Americans don’t WANT to be priests? Really? That for three centuries…and even now…only white men want to be priests?

That they never did, and that’s why none were ordained for three hundred years?

True, I suppose they could appeal to Rome and be ordained; indeed, that is eventually what happened. However, I am strongly reminded of the Bard here, and will paraphrase a conversation that went":

So…an African American…if you could find one that wanted to be a priest, that is…could appeal to Rome and be ordained.

Why so can I, and so can any person, but
Will Rome answer when you appeal?

Evidently…slow communication, I suppose, it took three hundred years for Rome to listen to one.

It took us considerably less time. After that first appeal, it took the Catholic church nearly fifty years to have more than one African American priest. African Americans are still woefully under represented in the priesthood, going by population percentage. IS the church doing yeoman’s work in overcoming centuries of racism and discrimination? yep, it is, and all honor to you all for doing so.

As well, it shouldn’t have taken us a hundred years, either, but it did, and when it happened for us, it happened all in one morning. All done and settled.

By the way, the priesthood is not all that automatic in the LDS church. One really does have to want it, and earn the right to it.

Are Catholics and Mormons different? Sure. We are. The processes are different. But you do not have the moral right to look down your noses at Mormons. Not over this one.

You keep bringing this up, and frankly, as an African American Catholic (who grew up in a largely African American parish), it is getting annoying.

The LDS church for much of its history, had a clear teaching that those of African lineage are not to be ordained to the priesthood. This was a clear, declared, official practice of the LDS church, preventing blacks from receiving a saving ordinance (I’m not even talking about the temple ordinances for both black males and females in this case).

Now, in my time as LDS, I am grateful that I never experienced any racism. However, I did at times wonder, especially around the older LDS (who were alive during the days of the priesthood/temple ban), whether they had thoughts about Cain, conduct in the pre-mortal existence, or any of the other former teachings related to blacks (and we saw this rear its head with that BYU professor in the news relatively recently). In contrast, I never had the equivalent thoughts as a Catholic, since there simply is no equivalent to what occurred in Mormonism until 1978. I could accept that there were racist Catholics in the USA, products of their environment (just like what many LDS claim about Brigham Young and others). However, I’m grateful that the Church itself never, ever, taught that we could not receive a sacrament because of who we are, equivalent to what the LDS church said and did.

Did racist Catholics in America prevent American blacks from entering seminary? Sure, however I know that it wasn’t because of some teaching of the Church, but because they were racist (and obviously the Catholic Church existed all over the world, including in Africa, long before this was even an issue, and you therefore must ignore blacks outside of the USA during this time period to even pretend to have an argument). You simply can’t extrapolate the USA to the entire Catholic Church. I think any reasonable person can see the difference between that and what happened in Mormonism.

 

[LivingWaters7]

The difference was it was AMERICAN prejudice not church doctrine.

She can’t see the difference. It has been explained to her before, and she keeps trotting the same argument out.

If black Catholics in other countries read her statements, they’d be like .

 

[zaffiroborant]

She can’t see the difference. It has been explained to her before, and she keeps trotting the same argument out.

If black Catholics in other countries read her statements, they’d be like .

Sometimes I think that Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans and any other religion or non religion, of any color, in other countries think “Americans think everything relates to them and their history, and every race related thing is tinged by what went on in the States”.

 

[Stephen168]

She can’t see the difference. It has been explained to her before, and she keeps trotting the same argument out.

Dianaiad knows this but the only way she can defend Mormonism is to try and destroy Catholicism; but it is always the same irrational attempt.
This is the reason she cannot respond to posts 62, 66, 74 or 75, but instead drags out one of many irrational, off topic, attacks on the Catholic Church.

 

[manualman]

Dianaiad knows this but the only way she can defend Mormonism is to try and destroy Catholicism;

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.