A Question For Mormon Critics

[Yirgacheffe]

I don't think so Yirgacheffe. Intrinsic evil, according to my meaning, would be something that could never at any time be permissible. But please, if you see an inconsistency, expose it for my benefit as you have on past occasions.

Thanks,

3DOP

Is it ever permissible to "directly negate the plan of God"?

[MormonMason]

Would you consider something that "directly negates the plan of God" to be intrinsically evil?

Abraham's marriage to his first concubine (first wife's handmaid) was directly in keeping with the will of God, even though Sarah knew something of that but seemingly without surety. Abraham's seed was to become nations (Genesis 17:5-6). Children of Ishmael were included in that promise (Genesis 21:13). After his wife died he married another named Keturah and had more sons. Not well known is that Abraham also had more than one concubine before this marriage (the number is unspecified but more than one), by whom he also had sons (Genesis 25:6 (NAB [Official Catholic Bible] falsely translates the Hebrew plural here "by concubinage")).

[Flyonthewall]

You mean "attempt" to negate the plan of God. I do not think it is possible to actually "negate" the plan of God. His plan uses Judo...uses the weight or force of its opponent against him...

[Yirgacheffe]

You mean "attempt" to negate the plan of God. I do not think it is possible to actually "negate" the plan of God. His plan uses Judo...uses the weight or force of its opponent against him...

It's a quote.

[3DOP]

Is it ever permissible to "directly negate the plan of God"?

Hi again Yirgacheffe,

I don't know about this negating the "plan of God". Was that me who used that expression somewhere? Anyway, it seems like are you asking if it is permissible to deliberately oppose God's will? Assuredly that would be a rhetorical question. So of course not to that. I am interested for you to get to your point. What is your objection if you have one? At this point, I fail to see how the proper reply to your question compromises what I have said about polygamy.

I am proposing that there are acts which are intrinsically evil. If an employer defrauds a labourer of his wages, for instance, that is always a wrongful act. The act would be evil whether there were a decree against it or not. It seems like we should be confident that God will never have a dispensation when He says that now it is okay for employers to begin to cheat their workers of just wages. But the law of monogamy has been subject to change in biblical history. For those like me who hold that God has at times allowed polygamy and at others not, we are forced to admit that the evil lies outside of the act. The evil arises when it is forbidden. Monogamy is a mutable disciplinary law that God institutes for reasons other than that the polygamous act itself is necessarily, or intrinsically wrong.

3DOP

[MormonMason]

...God has at times allowed polygamy...

And, at times outright instituted it in even the Bible, as in 2 Samuel 12:7-8, by giving David all his wives, but one, with the option of adding twice as many if David had just asked.

[Yirgacheffe]

Hi again Yirgacheffe,

I don't know about this negating the "plan of God". Was that me who used that expression somewhere? Anyway, it seems like are you asking if it is permissible to deliberately oppose God's will? Assuredly that would be a rhetorical question. So of course not to that. I am interested for you to get to your point. What is your objection if you have one? At this point, I fail to see how the proper reply to your question compromises what I have said about polygamy.

I am proposing that there are acts which are intrinsically evil. If an employer defrauds a labourer of his wages, for instance, that is always a wrongful act. The act would be evil whether there were a decree against it or not. It seems like we should be confident that God will never have a dispensation when He says that now it is okay for employers to begin to cheat their workers of just wages. But the law of monogamy has been subject to change in biblical history. For those like me who hold that God has at times allowed polygamy and at others not, we are forced to admit that the evil lies outside of the act. The evil arises when it is forbidden. Monogamy is a mutable disciplinary law that God institutes for reasons other than that the polygamous act itself is necessarily, or intrinsically wrong.

3DOP

Is deceiving someone to get something you want intrinsically evil, or how about lying, there is a commandment against it but what if the lie is to save a life? The idea of intrinsic evil, what would make that list and how it would work in the messy world we find ourselves in is intriguing to me. I've seen polygamy put on the intrinsically evil list, it is a grave offense against marriage according to the catechism it has been described on good authority (Catholic anyway ) as being something that "directly negates the plan of God". Somehow I don't think your, oh say casual, attitude toward polygamy would go over so well with my hardcore Catholic neighbors, but it will be fun to bring it up. The summer is just starting and our whole block is a neighborly bunch getting together over food, beer and bonfires, the conversations are often quite thought provoking. It will be interesting to get their perspective on many of the questions and thoughts in this thread, the trick of course is always, how to work them into the conversation.

[3DOP]

Is deceiving someone to get something you want intrinsically evil, or how about lying, there is a commandment against it but what if the lie is to save a life? The idea of intrinsic evil, what would make that list and how it would work in the messy world we find ourselves in is intriguing to me. I've seen polygamy put on the intrinsically evil list, it is a grave offense against marriage according to the catechism it has been described on good authority (Catholic anyway ) as being something that "directly negates the plan of God". Somehow I don't think your, oh say casual, attitude toward polygamy would go over so well with my hardcore Catholic neighbors, but it will be fun to bring it up. The summer is just starting and our whole block is a neighborly bunch getting together over food, beer and bonfires, the conversations are often quite thought provoking. It will be interesting to get their perspective on many of the questions and thoughts in this thread, the trick of course is always, how to work them into the conversation.

You have seen polygamy on a Catholic "intrinsically evil list". Interesting. I don't suppose you would like to give any references?

As for its being a grave offense now, yes. I never denied that polygamy is now gravely sinful. But is Abraham in Hell for it? No, the place where Old Testament saints went before the Ascension is named after the polygamist, Abraham's Bosom! Are grave offenses limited, according to your knowledge of Catholic moral theology, to acts that are intrinsically evil? I would hate to have to defend such a position. If your hardcore Catholic neighbors will think about it, they cannot help but see that polygamy was sometimes permitted in the Old Testament. If to be "hardcore Catholic" means to do violence to the memories of saintly Old Testament patriarchs and King David, I would be most pleased not to be so identified.

[3DOP]

Here is an article from the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas bearing on the questions at hand.

It is stated (Galatians 3:19) that the Law "was set because of transgressors [Vulgate: 'transgressions']," namely in order to prohibit them. Now the Old Law mentions plurality of wives without any prohibition thereof, as appears from Deuteronomy 21:15, "If a man have two wives," etc. Therefore they were not transgressors through having two wives; and so it was lawful.

Further, this is confirmed by the example of the holy patriarchs, who are stated to have had several wives, and yet were most pleasing to God, for instance Jacob, David, and several others. Therefore at one time it was lawful.

---Supp, Q.65, Art. 2, "Whether it was ever lawful to have several wives?"

Hence it is evident that by taking several wives a man does not bind himself to the impossible, considering the principal end of marriage; and therefore plurality of wives is not against the first principles of the natural law.

---Ibid. art. 1, Whether it is against the natural law to have several wives?", reply to objection 7

[why me]

Here is an article from the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas bearing on the questions at hand.

---Supp, Q.65, Art. 2, "Whether it was ever lawful to have several wives?"

---Ibid. art. 1, Whether it is against the natural law to have several wives?", reply to objection 7

This is a good point. However, from my own experience, your references will be overlooked by many critics who refuse to see it in the bible and in other writings.

[3DOP]

This is a good point. However, from my own experience, your references will be overlooked by many critics who refuse to see it in the bible and in other writings.

Thanks why me.

Some critics ought to be overlooked.

I am thinking that Yirgacheffe's quote from Catholics about frustrating "the plan of God", are in reference to Our Lord's comments in the Gospel (Mt. 19) when approached about marriage and mutliple wives. I am paraphrasing, but at one point he was approached by some asking about why Moses authorized a bill of divorcement. He said, "In the beginning it was not so." Ideally, before the Fall, "the perfect plan" was one man and one woman. He also said that Moses allowed divorce because of "the hardness of your hearts". If a Catholic speaks of divorce or polygamy as negating "the plan of God", it would mean that God's plan had been put aside because of circumstances. It cannot mean that neither was ever permitted. It means they were not permitted in the beginning, nor are they permitted now. In the new kingdom of God, multiple wives (through divorce and remarriage or consensual polygamy) are forbidden because God's plan is being restored among those whose hearts should be softened and able to live according to God's plan. I would like to see Yirgacheffe's quote in context but I'll bet its something very like that.

[USU78]

Is it ever permissible to "directly negate the plan of God"?

Melkor was mightiest of the Valar, yet Illuvatar incorporated even the worst results of his destructive rages into his creation, creating something even more wondrous and beautiful than the rest of the Valar could have conceived of.

Do you really mean to say that a mere mortal can negate G-d's plan?

Gotta CFR you on that one, my friend.

[Five Solas]

...and the fact that 1Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, all commonly are regarded by mainstream biblical scholars as texts forged and faked in the name of Paul. In that light, it is of interest that the oldest codex containing letters of Paul ever found omits the Pastorals, and always did. Its earlier exemplar apparently omitted them as well. So, yes there is just a tad bit of ambiguity that can be found there.

In the old days (when I was LDS) it was popular to impeach appeals to the Bible by claiming translation errors together with deliberate omission of "plain and precious truths" (the former comes directly from the Articles of Faith, not sure the origin of p&pt--but it was a common phrase). That said, I don't recall anyone suggesting wholesale forgery/fakery of entire books.

Do you think this development constitutes evolution or revolution, MormonMason?

;0)

--Erik

[Yirgacheffe]

Here is an article from the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas bearing on the questions at hand.

---Supp, Q.65, Art. 2, "Whether it was ever lawful to have several wives?"

---Ibid. art. 1, Whether it is against the natural law to have several wives?", reply to objection 7

It was JPII that said "directly negates the plan of God" you can read the whole (huge) thing here.

http://www.vatican.v...nsortio_en.html

As to the Aquinas quoted, he also seems to think that slavery is not intrinsically evil, I disagree so I won't be looking to him to clarify what's moral, sorry

Sorry I'm not really interested in debating polygamy, I think it's wrong and no amount of bible quoting or patriarchs is going to change my mind. It was your use of intrinsically evil that caught my attention and led me to post so I'll leave this thread alone.

[3DOP]

Yirgacheffe,

Things can be "wrong" without being intrinsically evil. Things can be forbidden without violating "the first principles of natural law."

Your "references" are less than impressive. Where is this Catholic list of intrinsic evils you were talking about? How about a paragraph number to find this alleged "directly negates the plan of God" that would be incompatible with Aquinas and me. It isn't just me who wonders what you are talking about and then you give us "the whole (huge) thing" without telling us where to find the quote. Do you even know where it is yourself? Have you read "the whole (huge) thing"?

You were proposing your supposedly "hardcore Catholic" neighbors opinion of the matter as though I should change my mind because of whoever they are and whatever they might tell you at some block party. I counter with St. Thomas Aquinas to affirm that the nuanced view of polygamy I suggest is fully compatible with the Catholic faith and then you walk away with some sling of mud about slavery. I think I must have confused you with somebody else when I thought you had offered me good correction on previous occasions. It is a different person on this thread than who I remember.

3DOP

Edited May 15, 2013 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

Would you consider something that "directly negates the plan of God" to be intrinsically evil?

Not necessarily. Ignorance can directly negate the plan of God to someone who doesn't know what God's plan is, on some level, and ignorance isn't something I regard as intrinsically evil. It should be overcome, though, so that instead of remaining ignorant a person would instead become knowledgable about what God's plan is. At that 2point a person would either agree or not agree to follow God's plan.

[Yirgacheffe]

Yirgacheffe,

Things can be "wrong" without being intrinsically evil. Things can be forbidden without violating "the first principles of natural law."

Your "references" are less than impressive. Where is this Catholic list of intrinsic evils you were talking about? How about a paragraph number to find this alleged "directly negates the plan of God" that would be incompatible with Aquinas and me. It isn't just me who wonders what you are talking about and then you give us "the whole (huge) thing" without telling us where to find the quote. Do you even know where it is yourself? Have you read "the whole (huge) thing"?

You were proposing your supposedly "hardcore Catholic" neighbors opinion of the matter as though I should change my mind because of whoever they are and whatever they might tell you at some block party. I counter with St. Thomas Aquinas to affirm that the nuanced view of polygamy I suggest is fully compatible with the Catholic faith and then you walk away with some sling of mud about slavery. I think I must have confused you with somebody else when I thought you had offered me good correction on previous occasions. It is a different person on this thread than who I remember.

3DOP

The quote from JPII is in paragraph 19, sorry it never occurred to me that someone wouldn't just use the find feature and I have read it at least up to the point that it starts talking about the church. If you think I'm slinging mud at Aquinas, please show me where he calls slavery an intrinsic evil, though maybe the idea of intrinsic evil wasn't around then. As to the list containing polygamy as an intrinsic evil, below are 2 that list it, there are others that don't. That some list it and some don't seems to be a point against it being intrinsically evil but there are things on those lists that I'd exclude on my own list of evil intrinsic or otherwise.

http://catholicmoraltheology.com/voting-against-intrinsically-evil-acts-a-working-list/

http://unionsandsocialjustice.wordpress.com/issues/intrinsic-evil/examples-of-intrinsic-evil/

[3DOP]

The quote from JPII is in paragraph 19, sorry it never occurred to me that someone wouldn't just use the find feature and I have read it at least up to the point that it starts talking about the church. If you think I'm slinging mud at Aquinas, please show me where he calls slavery an intrinsic evil, though maybe the idea of intrinsic evil wasn't around then. As to the list containing polygamy as an intrinsic evil, below are 2 that list it, there are others that don't. That some list it and some don't seems to be a point against it being intrinsically evil but there are things on those lists that I'd exclude on my own list of evil intrinsic or otherwise.

http://catholicmoral...a-working-list/

http://unionsandsoci...intrinsic-evil/

Thanks Yirgacheffe. I truly appreciate the further info and concede that you obviously have reasons for the claims you have made.

However, I don't see how polygamy can possibly qualifiy as "those things humans do that are considered by Catholics to be always and everywhere wrong, regardless of circumstance." I agree with the definition. I have no wish to be soft on something hateful or cruddy. I don't "like" polygamy. I am not some creepy old guy who is dreaming about another wife. I don't know where you are as far as LDS polygamy goes, but I would be happy to attack it if I thought I could. To be candid, it makes me skeptically suspicious when supposed religious prophets end up having a lot of "wives", and that would include the LDS version of polygamy. But that doesn't allow me to say that it is "always and everywhere wrong, regardless of circumstance."

I just don't want to take a position that I can't defend. As a Catholic, do I not have to defend the Old Testament? I can't just dump all over those guys that God blessed can I? Even before I look at Pope John Paul;'s encyclical, I am ready to accept that polygamy negates the original and current plan of God. Christ's words, "It was not so in the beginning", from Mt. 19, makes it appear that there was a period when because of circumstance, God, through Moses, because of "the hardness of your hearts" allowed divorce and remarriage, or polygamy. I can despise polygamy. I can say it is a grave sin. I can say that it upsets the moral order. I can acknowledge that it defies God's original plan. But the definition given of intrinsic evil seems to force me to admit that however evil it may be, polygamy is NOT intrinsically evil. I so conclude because there seems to have been a circumstance under which polygamy was permissible.

Does this make my position on polygamy "casual"? You may think so. I don't take any position that I talk about lightly. As a Catholic, I am AGAINST every instance of polygamy since the time of Christ. But that does not give me license to argue against the Mormon practice by claiming the act to be intrinsically evil. Such a position is impossible for me to defend and as a Catholic, i will not make the attempt.

You admitted that you just think it is wrong and don't care about patriarchs or Bible verses. Fine. I am not trying to talk anybody into practicing polygamy or even being sympathetic towards it for others. But I am committed to the revelation that the Catholic Church admits as authoritative. I notice that one of the lists includes one act that I had suggested as intrinsically evil, defrauding a wage earner. I would agree with all of the acts listed except polygamy. It seems certain to me that those who have included polygamy with intrinsically evil acts like masturbation, euthanasia, and abortion have simply forgotten or forsaken what Catholic revelation has said about the act.

I am pleased to discover the basis of your understanding of how good Catholics should be thinking. I certainly see now how my "intrinsic evil" comment caught your eye in light of what you have seen from the fairly reliable sources you cite. I hope you can see why agreeing with their definition, I am forced to disagree with their conclusion and still consider myself a faithful, if not "hardcore" Catholic.

Take care, Yirgacheffe. Thanks for your latest helpful reply.

Rory (aka 3DOP)

Edited May 16, 2013 by 3DOP