Joseph Smith, multiple wives

[Vort]

And even so, as far as the old testament goes, I actually don't think God ever was okay with plural marriages. The Old Testament is complicated, and personally I don't take much if any of it literally. I guess on this we will just have to agree to disagree, which is perfectly ok. :) Thanks for the responses.

 

I find it fascinating (and this is in no sense intended as a criticism of you, CatholicLady) that many nominal Christians who believe exactly this -- the Old Testament is basically out-of-bounds and we can mostly ignore it because of the new covenant Christ brought -- will nevertheless fault us because we believe the Bible to be the word of God "so far as it is translated correctly". In actual point of fact, it seems Latter-day Saints generally believe and know the Bible MORE THAN most other Christians, as demonstrated in this chart:

 

 

I would also point out that the bulk of the Old Testament is historical in nature, so I'm not sure why a believing Christian of any denomination would not want to take it literally for the most part.

[CatholicLady]

Okay... here's your Catholic to LDS gap on Polygamy:

The missing doctrine that is absent from the Catholic teaching is the doctrine of Eternal Marriage/Eternal Families.

The Catholics believe that marriage is an earthly ordinance and ends at death. Familial relationship also end at death. This is based on Matthew 22 and several texts in Paul's letters (one oft these days, I'm going to learn to memorize chapter and verses of biblical principles... But it won't be today).

The LDS believe that marriage - when sealed by proper authority - is eternal. Families, therefore, is an eternal relationship that has important implications in our eternal organization. The important distinction in the interpretation of Matthew 22 is the faith of the Sadducees in the resurrection (eternal state). Matthew pointed out that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, therefore, the marriages they were asking about are marriages performed outside of the faith. Jesus then replied that marriages for those who do not believe in the resurrection end at death.

In LDS and Catholic belief alike, marriages performed by secular ordinance are non-binding. But because of the missing doctrine of eternal marriage, the Catholics believe it's not binding on earth. Whereas, the LDS believe it is binding only until death. The marriage (like marriages performed by the Sadducees) dissolves after death as Christ taught in Matthew 22.

So, how this ties to polygamy...

In both LDS and Catholic teaching, when a wife dies, the husband can marry another. But, because in Catholic belief, the marriage ended at death, the husband is only married to one person. In LDS belief, marriages do not end in death, therefore, when the husband married another wife, he has made two eternally binding covenants. Each covenant is between one man, one woman and God. It is not a covenant between one man, two women, and God.

Polygamy, therefore, is an Eternal doctrine. So that, even if God commands to only have one living spouse in mortality, it does not change the eternal principle of polygamy.

Hope this clarifies things.

 

Interesting perspective, thanks!

[CatholicLady]

 

I would also point out that the bulk of the Old Testament is historical in nature, so I'm not sure why a believing Christian of any denomination would not want to take it literally for the most part.

 

Hi Vort. Hmmm, I've never heard anyone say the OT is hystorically accurate, as it is literally written.

 

But don't get me wrong...

 

I do believe some of those people may have been real people. But that doesn't mean I believe those stories to be literal. For example, maybe there was a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. But do I believe they were the first human beings on earth, 6000 years ago? Do I believe they were naked, talked to a snake, and ate an apple of sin? No. :)

Maybe there was a man named Jonah who travelled to a land called Nineveh and taught its residents about God. Does that mean I believe he survived in the belly of a whale for 3 days? No.

Likewaise, maybe there was a king named David who dueled with another man named Goliath and had a lot of wives. Does that mean I believe God's voice echoed from the skies and told David to marry multiple women? Nope! Lol.

I believe those stories are important to teach a lesson or remind us that God is real and has always been here. I believe there are many examples that show virtue and goodness that we should take into account and follow. But I don't believe they were word for word factually accurate and written as any sort of dogma for us to take literally. That's why Jesus came and brought Christianity.  

Hope that helps clarify my views!   

Edited January 29, 2015 by CatholicLady

[Jane_Doe]

CatholicLady, I've a question for you.

 

In several posts you've referred to Christ as the founder of the Christian Faith, in such a way that it sounds like you're saying "He created this whole new religion", and I'm inferring that you view the Old Testament as a different religion.  Is that how you view it?  (I'm just asking your perspective).

 

To me it seems that shifting from the Old Testament to New Testament was undoubtedly a major metamorphoses of theology and practice.  But to me it was a metamorphoses: the old changes to the new, as opposed to old ends and this brand new thing comes along.

[Claire]

When it comes to determining how literally to take the Old Testament, I tend to take the same approach as I do with the Gospels.

 

So, we all know that the four Gospels all tell the stories of Jesus' ministry, but there are definitely irreconcilable differences between the three if you want to try to form a coherent timeline that accounts for all of them. I personally think that the reason for this differences is that each Gospel writer, lead by the inspiration of the holy spirit, made alterations to the narrative in order to reflect some greater divine truth. In other words, we can learn more from the Gospels precisely because they deviate from actual events. That being said, there's enough of the actual events in there that we can suppose that we have a pretty good idea of how Jesus' life actually played out.

 

Applying this to the Old Testament, I think that the authors of the various books probably did deviate from how actual events played out in places. After all, I don't think most Christians would say that the Creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are literal, particularly since they contradict one another in places. That being said, where the scriptures deviate from actual events, they make that deviation in the name of a greater truth.

 

That being said, I do think a plurality of wives existed in the Old Testament, that it was allowed for in the Law of Moses, and it is something we have to account for. From the Catholic view, we have two "versions" of marriage: sacramental and natural. The latter, which would include all those Old Testament examples, is definitely most properly understood in the context of one man and one woman married until death, but allowances can (and often times were) made that deviate from that norm. Sacramental marriage between two Christians is a much less fluid affair, with the rules must more strictly enforced.

 

All that aside, I do think anatess hit this one on the head. If marriage is eternal, then you even in a monogamous society you have to be able to account for polygamy in the afterlife (in the case of marriage after death). If marriage ends at death, then it's kind of a mute point.

[PolarVortex]

In several posts you've referred to Christ as the founder of the Christian Faith, in such a way that it sounds like you're saying "He created this whole new religion", and I'm inferring that you view the Old Testament as a different religion.  Is that how you view it?  (I'm just asking your perspective).

 

I don't mean to elbow my way into a great question for CL, and I'm interested in CL's answer as well.

 

I just wanted to add a quick data point from my own experience.  When I attended my cousin's bar mitzvah (my Catholic aunt converted to Judaism when she married her husband), the cantor sang a long time in Hebrew, which I did not understand.  To pass the time, I picked up some hymnal-like book in the pews and started reading.  The first section was an explanation of Christianity from a Jewish perspective.  The book didn't even use the words "Jesus" or "Christ" and instead referred to Jesus as the "Founder."  Clearly some Jews view the movement from Judaism to Christianity as a discontinuous function, and I think many Christians would agree.  In fact, I've heard people claim that Mormonism is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism.

[Just_A_Guy]

A question for our Catholic brethren (sisteren?) re the natural-versus-sacramental marriage view:

 

If God doesn't recognize "natural marriage", does that mean that a Catholic couple who were married civilly by--say--a judge, but have not had their union solemnized by the Church, are technically fornicating and would be denied communion?

 

Thanks--

[Guest]

A question for our Catholic brethren (sisteren?) re the natural-versus-sacramental marriage view:

 

If God doesn't recognize "natural marriage", does that mean that a Catholic couple who were married civilly by--say--a judge, but have not had their union solemnized by the Church, are technically fornicating and would be denied communion?

 

Thanks--

 

Yes.

 

Hence, my wedding photos are not displayed on my mother's wall.

[Vort]

Yes.

 

Hence, my wedding photos are not displayed on my mother's wall.

 

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

[JimmiGerman]

(...)

I do believe some of those people may have been real people. But that doesn't mean I believe those stories to be literal. For example, maybe there was a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. But do I believe they were the first human beings on earth, 6000 years ago? Do I believe they were naked, talked to a snake, and ate an apple of sin? No. :)

 

 

I'm not sure if it's of importance, but

 

1.) Adam himself didn't speak with the snake, not even a single word, as far as I know, and

 

2.) the snake started the conversation with Eve.

 

That's why God cursed the snake, because she (the snake) began to speak first, and not Eve. Would Eve have started the conversation instead of her (the snake) and asked the snake about the apples first, she (Eve) certainly was more guilty than she's been found guilty from the moment she had answered the question of the snake and went into conversation with her (the snake). Let's say, she (Eve) was guilty in a second degree. And Adam only in a third degree, hypothetically, because he trusted in what his wife was telling him. But on the other hand he (Adam) was not critical enough and did what Eve said. Maybe he's also guilty in a second degree, and both of them had to leave the Garden of Eden.

 

Is there anything told about the snake? I mean, didn't she (the snake) have to leave the Garden, too? Hmm. I mean, the snake started all the trouble. Just to mention it. Hmmm... and I believe they were naked, because it was 6,000 years ago, and they had no clothes at that time. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[CatholicLady]

CatholicLady, I've a question for you.

 

In several posts you've referred to Christ as the founder of the Christian Faith, in such a way that it sounds like you're saying "He created this whole new religion", and I'm inferring that you view the Old Testament as a different religion.  Is that how you view it?  (I'm just asking your perspective).

 

To me it seems that shifting from the Old Testament to New Testament was undoubtedly a major metamorphoses of theology and practice.  But to me it was a metamorphoses: the old changes to the new, as opposed to old ends and this brand new thing comes along.

 

The old changes to the new sounds about right. There are many things in the OT that contradict what Jesus tells us in the NT. I believe that ultimately, morallity was the same. I don't believe God ever changed morality. But I do believe Jesus helped clarify a lot of things for us, and teach us new things... things that seemed foggy as read in the OT. And yes, I believe that Jesus was the founder of Christianity. Hope that helps!

[CatholicLady]

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

 

Yes.

[Blackmarch]

Hi everyone. :)

How do you explain/reconcile Joseph Smith having multiple wives?

 

Thanks!

that was one of the big tests for Joseph. God wills what he will, for whatever seemeth good to him..

Hopefully one is prepared for whatever sacrifice whatever God asks for.

One of the big underlying themes of what Joseph taught was that of unity and coming together- ultimately all the teachings of the church end up going in this direction- from being united with God, united as a people, as a family, and in thought and in action. being knit together as a family is a strong way of accomplishing that.

So I would not be surprised at all if there is more to marriage than just having kids and deeply caring for another.

Personally i'd rather have God task me with marrying a 100 wives than commanding to kill my only son.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Blackmarch

[Jane_Doe]

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

 

And what would you do if only one of the adults (the wife, for example) wanted to convert to Catholicism?

Edited January 29, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

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

 

Adult baptism is a lengthy process in the Catholic Church.  They have what is called an RCIA process that can last a year...  There are several stages in this (sorry, I'm not as familiar on the stages so I don't really know it intimately by memory).  There's the inquiry stage (similar to an investigator) where one expresses a desire to become Catholic.  Then there's the catechumen (where you study and apply the doctrines).  Then there's the sacraments - you go through the process of inward inspection and repentance and go through the first 3 sacraments - baptism, holy eucharist, and confirmation.  This is a conditional sacrament... you go through a period of a few weeks, month, whatever the bishop thinks you need... to make sure you have turned away from sin... before your baptism becomes absolute.

 

Okay, I may have some slight misses on that paragraph but that's mainly the process.

 

So that... if you are a married convert, your marriage will be given dispensation when you get into the baptism stage.  If the priest cannot give you dispensation, you cannot get baptized.

 

A dispensation is the same thing as a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic.  The non-Catholic is not required to become Catholic as long as the non-Catholic spouse promises to not hinder the other spouse and their future children to be raised Catholic... their marriage can be given dispensation.

[JimmiGerman]

(...)

Personally i'd rather have God task me with marrying a 100 wives than commanding to kill my only son.

 

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.

Edited January 29, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[Jane_Doe]

 

A dispensation is the same thing as a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic.  The non-Catholic is not required to become Catholic as long as the non-Catholic spouse promises to not hinder the other spouse and their future children to be raised Catholic... their marriage can be given dispensation.

 

 

So is a "dispensation" marriage "natural", "sacramental", or something else?

[The Folk Prophet]

But 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. But if you are once married with a hundred wives, it's too late and there is no way back.

 

This is meaningless. God's commands are God's commands. Obey and be blessed, or do not and suffer.

 

Besides that, who says it's too late and there is no way back. Divorce is certainly a way back.

[JimmiGerman]

This is meaningless. God's commands are God's commands. Obey and be blessed, or do not and suffer.

 

Besides that, who says it's too late and there is no way back. Divorce is certainly a way back.

 

 

Sure. If you have the money for the divorce lawyer in a hundred cases... (don't forget Blackmarch was speaking of marrying a hundred wives).

 

"Obey and be blessed, or do not and suffer."  Variation # 3: Obey and suffer. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[Guest]

So is a "dispensation" marriage "natural", "sacramental", or something else?

 

Depends on the manner that they are married.

 

A Catholic can marry a non-Catholic in a sacramental marriage - they have the marriage performed under the authority of the priest.  Any other marriage besides this is a natural marriage.

 

Edit:  Wait, let me qualify this one.  If the initial marriage was natural (it's officially called non-canonical, by the way... this is the first time I've used natural to call it), at the moment the dispensation is issued, it becomes sacramental to the Catholic.  So, let's say a devout Catholic wants to marry a Muslim - and they agree on the marriage being performed in a Muslim ceremony - the Catholic would go and ask the bishop for dispensation.  They both go through the Catholic preparation for the sacrament of matrimony and once the bishop issues the dispensation they go to the Muslim cleric and get married.  The Catholic receives the marriage as a sacrament.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[JimmiGerman]

Depends on the manner that they are married.

 

A Catholic can marry a non-Catholic in a sacramental marriage - they have the marriage performed under the authority of the priest.  Any other marriage besides this is a natural marriage.

 

Edit:  Wait, let me qualify this one.  If the initial marriage was natural (it's officially called non-canonical, by the way... this is the first time I've used natural to call it), at the moment the dispensation is issued, it becomes sacramental to the Catholic.  So, let's say a devout Catholic wants to marry a Muslim - and they agree on the marriage being performed in a Muslim ceremony - the Catholic would go and ask the bishop for dispensation.  They both go through the Catholic preparation for the sacrament of matrimony and once the bishop issues the dispensation they go to the Muslim cleric and get married.  The Catholic receives the marriage as a sacrament.

 

Hmm...    

Edited January 29, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[Crypto]

This would be valid, however, statistically it has not been the case in mortality. Meaning, if there were more women in the pre-existence, you would expect that more females than males would be born into mortality...that more babies would be girls. This has not been, nor is, the case. So unless something changes in the future (a possibility...but a bit of a stretch, imo) then this theory doesn't work.

You are correct. I'm playing devils advocate a bit here.

This is a break down of Gender ratio's across the world. Pink=Girl Blue=Boy Green=Equal. This applies to modern time not historically. Average birth rates favor males slightly, however women tend to survive better. The blue countries don't surprise me too much.

(I'm not going to continue down this path, since the thread seems to have moved on)

[Vort]

The problem from an LDS doctrinal standpoint is that if more boys are born than girls, yet more women than men survive into adulthood, that means a lot more baby boys and boy children die than girls (which is true). Our theology teaches that these are exalted, so...if anything, that suggests an overabundance of males, not females.

 

Not that I believe such statistical arguments. I don't. But if they are to be used, they argue rather against polygyny instead of for.

[Just_A_Guy]

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

 

@ Crypto:  It should probably be noted that India and much of the Islamic bloc suffer from widespread infanticide of baby girls.  So does China, in point of fact--they just call it "selective abortion".

[Vort]

he fifty-five couples consisting of Brigham Young and each of his wives produced, on average, one child.

 

By the way, I should add to this to get a more complete picture: Brigham Young produced 56 children with (I think) sixteen of his wives. I'm pretty sure that quite a few of his wives, and perhaps many of them, were not sexually active with him, and were married to him as a way to have them taken care of. (I can't produce any documentation to this effect, it's just what I have heard over the years.) Anyway, 56 children / 16 wives = 3.5 children per fertile wife. So that's a lot more than one per wife

 

But still, at the time, I'm guessing that 3.5 children per couple on average would not have been considered a particularly high birth rate. I wager monogamous couples produced children at the same rate or higher, which was my point.