Joseph Smith, multiple wives

[The Folk Prophet]

@ Vort:  But girls are more inherently righteous than boys, doncha know? 

 

Statistically, of course, there have to be more women than men in the Celestial kingdom (meaning the highest degree/exaltation) if plural marriage is an eternal principle (which, realistically, doctrinally, is the only truly viable reason for it, as anatess pointed out earlier). If even one male in the Celestial kingdom has two eternal wives, then there must be at least one more female therein saved than males. By this logic, unless one rejects eternal plural marriage, as some are wont to do, then women are, indeed, statistically, more righteous than men -- even if it's only by the, perhaps, relatively few who are sealed in polygamous marriages.

 

:)

[Claire]

So then, adult converts to Catholicism are expected to avoid marital relations until their union is solemnized by a priest?

 

This has already been covered, but some distinctions need to be made.

 

Okay, first of all, God "recognizes" natural marriage. It really is a marriage, just not a sacramental one. In a Sacramental marriage between two Christians, you are endowed with certain graces that help you to better live out the marriage. These graces are not present in a natural marriage, which is part of the reason that they are less strict. Basically, in a natural marriage there are times where following all the rules may be impossible, but in a sacramental marriage you receive special graces from God that help you to overcome those obstacles, so you don't get the exceptions.

 

Next, if two non-Christians marry, or one Christian and one non-Christian marry, it's always a natural marriage. It automatically becomes a sacramental marriage at the moment that the married parties are received into the Catholic (or certain other) Churches.

 

A marriage between two Christians can be either natural or sacramental, depending on a lot of circumstances. The big one is that all the requirements for a sacramental marriage were met, which includes: intent to have children (if of child bearing age and not sterile) and freely given consent (no shot-gun weddings). Also there can not be any impediments to marriage, which is mainly an issue for people who are in the Catholic Church. Again, a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians is probably sacramental, definitely at least natural, and will be sacramental when one or both members enter the Church.

 

A marriage where one or both parties is Catholic has to meet the requirements of canon law to occur at all, either sacramentally or naturally. If a Catholic gets married, they have to basically follow all the rules in canon law (do it in a Church, go through all the paperwork, ect), or at least have a dispensation from any particular rule they aren't following. If the rules are all met, it's a sacramental marriage, if not, no marriage at all has occurred.

 

So, to answer the question, if two people who were never Catholic join the Church, their marriage is fine and nothing needs to happen. It either is already sacramental or will become so once the applicable parties join. If a fallen away Catholic marries outside the Church and opts to come back later, then they aren't really married and no intercourse is permitted until the Church solemnizes it.

[Vort]

So to Claireify :) (I am so darn clever!): Are Latter-day Saints considered Christians by the Catholic Church when determining e.g. whether a Catholic married to a Mormon is married to a Christian or a non-Christian?

[Claire]

So to Claireify :) (I am so darn clever!): Are Latter-day Saints considered Christians by the Catholic Church when determining e.g. whether a Catholic married to a Mormon is married to a Christian or a non-Christian

 

For the purposes of canon law, LDS are non-Christians. LDS baptisms are not recognized by the Catholic Church, and for all intents and purposes we believe that you become Christian through baptism.

[Vort]

For the purposes of canon law, LDS are non-Christians. LDS baptisms are not recognized by the Catholic Church, and for all intents and purposes we believe that you become Christian through baptism.

 

Yes, I knew that about baptism. I should have put the two together.

[Jane_Doe]

For the purposes of canon law, LDS are non-Christians. LDS baptisms are not recognized by the Catholic Church, and for all intents and purposes we believe that you become Christian through baptism.

 

How about day-to-day purposes?  (not cannon law).

[Claire]

How about day-to-day purposes?  (not cannon law).

 

I don't know of any official decrees on the subject. Basically the Church ruled against LDS baptisms being valid, and Canon Law defines a Christian based on baptism.

 

Besides, that, I think it largely boils down to semantics. If you define a Christian as being a person that believes in the Trinity, then obviously not. If you define it as being a person who believes Jesus Christ is their savior, then obviously yes. If you define it as a person who was baptized, then either the LDS are not Christian or they are the only true Christians (depending on your camp).

 

I personally subscribe to this quote from Justin Martyr:

 

"For as some who have been taught by the Master, Christ, not to deny Him, give encouragement to others when they are put to the question, so in all probability do those who lead wicked lives give occasion to those who, without consideration, take upon them to accuse all the Christians of impiety and wickedness. And this also is not right. For of philosophy, too, some assume the name and the garb who do nothing worthy of their profession; and you are well aware, that those of the ancients whose opinions and teachings were quite diverse, are yet all called by the one name of philosophers."

 

Basically there are a lot of people who claim to be Christians, and many of those don't live in a manner or carry beliefs that reflect that profession. I'm not going to pretend to know "how Christian is Christian enough" to get the title. Obviously I and a great many of other folks who profess to be Christian hold radically different beliefs, and rather than argue about the title it makes more sense to me to concentrate on the beliefs.

[yjacket]

To kill the son, maybe God does not mean it in such a way, and at the last moment he'll pull back his order (because he probably just wants to examine you). But if you are once married with a hundred wives, it's too late and there is no way back. In any case, it could bring more difficulties than the first variation.

 

It doesn't work like that.  It would not have been a test for Abraham if he thought prior to leading Isaac up the mountain "God will stop me from killing my son".  Abraham had to be 100% committed to God's commandments with no equivocation or thought of getting out of it.  Not my will but thine.  

 

Because in life and our own daily lives, sometimes God sends us a ram and sometimes we are commanded to die.  I think Abraham probably like our Savior pleaded with God for the cup to pass from him that he wouldn't have to sacrifice his son. When that relief did not come, he obeyed.  In Abraham's case, the ram appeared at the last second, in Christ's case-He was the ram.

[Guest]

How about day-to-day purposes?  (not cannon law).

 

This has a very simple answer.

 

LDS for ALL intent or purpose is not considered Christian by the Catholic Church because... tat-tada... they are not Trinitarian.  Amen.

[Blackmarch]

To kill the son, maybe God does not mean it in such a way, and at the last moment he'll pull back his order (because he probably just wants to examine you). But if you are once married with a hundred wives, it's too late and there is no way back. In any case, it could bring more difficulties than the first variation.

 

Perhaps, it certainly is easier to see that in hind sight... which Abraham didn't have and didn't know about right up to the point (the point about where he's going to bring the knife down to finish the job) where the angel comes "whoa stop, you've proven yourself- go use that lamb over there in that bush instead". Many times when we are asked to sacrifice we aren't always told there will be a safety net. Merely to trust God, and be obedient and that things will work out in the end.

And I agree having to deal with a marriage honorably would be an eternal work which logically would be more difficult all around having to work with it for the rest of your life compared to just having to do a singular action. However psychologically I'd have a much more difficult time if that action was having to sacrifice a child or being commanded to take up arms, especially if one can't see where the road ends, in that moment.

Now I don't think God will be asking either of that of any of us himself in these days, altho it's possible where one can end up in a situation where that is the right thing to do.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Blackmarch

[The Folk Prophet]

Perhaps, it certainly is easier to see that in hind sight... which Abraham didn't have and didn't know about right up to the point (the point about where he's going to bring the knife down to finish the job) where the angel comes "whoa stop, you've proven yourself- go use that lamb over there in that bush instead". Many times when we are asked to sacrifice we aren't always told there will be a safety net. Merely to trust God, and be obedient and that things will work out in the end.

And I agree having to deal with a marriage honorably would be an eternal work which logically would be more difficult all around having to work with it for the rest of your life compared to just having to do a singular action. However psychologically I'd have a much more difficult time if that action was having to sacrifice a child or being commanded to take up arms, especially if one can't see where the road ends, in that moment.

Now I don't think God will be asking either of that of any of us himself in these days, altho it's possible where one can end up in a situation where that is the right thing to do.

 

Of course there's also the very real idea that after so many years of having a plural marriage, one is as likely as not (if treating the situation with honor, respect, and diligence) to learn to prefer the situation. I'm thinking that there would probably never be a situation where one prefer the fact that they had to kill their own child (except, of course, as a path to gaining eternal life).

 

The idea that everyone (females included) hated every minute of plural marriage and never had anything but suffering and sacrifice therein is simply not true. I do expect it was challenging for everyone involved therein. But so is monogamous marriage, so that's hardly compelling.

 

We, being small minded as all humans are, cannot see past our own cultural biases. But most of the aversion to plural marriage is just that.

[Vort]

The idea that everyone (females included) hated every minute of plural marriage and never had anything but suffering and sacrifice therein is simply not true. I do expect it was challenging for everyone involved therein. But so is monogamous marriage, so that's hardly compelling.

 

We, being small minded as all humans are, cannot see past our own cultural biases. But most of the aversion to plural marriage is just that.

 

Really good points. The early Saints thought they were re-establishing Godly marriage and preparing for Christ's Second Coming. They clung to plural marriage, men and women both, not merely as something that distinguished them from the "gentiles", but as a saving practice. Many considered "the new and everlasting covenant" to be synonymous with "plural marriage". So the modern stereotyped beliefs among some that polygamists consisted of cowed, fearful women and overbearing, lustful (or brainwashed) men is just so much stuff and nonsense. They were, many or most of them, among the best of people in their generation.

[Just_A_Guy]

Lots of those Utah pioneer women gave as good as they got.  I have an ancestor who came to Utah as a widow with two young children, by train, in the 1860s.  A sympathetic stranger with a team and wagon at the train depot in Ogden, offered to take her part of the way down to Salt Lake.  Along the way they stopped at his own home to get food and supplies for the trip.  Supposedly, his wife saw the wagon pull up in front of the house and saw her husband--along with a strange woman and a couple of kids--get out.  The story goes that the wife then came running out of the house and screamed something to the effect of "If you've gone and married yourself another wife, you just keep right on driving, mister!"