Claim 20. Mormonism is non-Christian because it once advocated polygamy.
Response. Frequently lurking behind such charges is a hostility among traditional Christian thinkers toward embodiment and sexuality—a hostility that reaches its most extreme form in such manifestations as anchorite asceticism and priestly celibacy, but which is certainly not limited to these. The great formulator of such Christian attitudes is Augustine, of whom Daniel Maguire states that, "On matters of sex and marriage . . . Augustine the Christian was never fully free of Mani." "Does Augustine's understanding of sex and marriage," wonders Eugene Hillman, "perhaps owe more to his own pagan background, and particularly to his Manichaean experience, than to his Christian faith?" It would be ironic, would it not, if it turns out that anti-Mormons are using a standard derived from pagans—from Manichaeans and Platonists (or even, most amusingly, from Hindus)—to determine the limits of Christianity on this issue?
In fact, Christian history demonstrates beyond question that polygamy cannot be used as a club with which to drive the Mormons from Christendom. It is too blunt an instrument, and would chase too many obvious Christians from the fold as well. The sixth century Arab Christian kings of Lakhm and Ghassan were polygamists, for instance, as were the contemporary Christians of Ethiopia. Pope Clement VII, faced with the threat of a continent-dividing divorce, considered bigamy as a solution to the problem of Henry VIII. Was he, with such thoughts, flirting with becoming a non-Christian? Did Martin Luther cease to be a Christian when he made the same suggestion, in September 1531, to King Henry's envoy, Robert Barnes? Nearly a decade later, Luther counselled Philip of Hesse to take Margaret von der Sale as a second wife. He justified the idea from the Old Testament, as the Mormons would in a later century. Furthermore, he suggested public denial. (Generally, he had written in an earlier letter, he favored monogamy, remarking that "a Christian is not free to marry several wives unless God commands him to go beyond the liberty which is conditioned by love.") But when Philip actually did marry Margaret in March of 1540, he did so—contrary to Luther's counsel—publicly. Indeed, the marriage was performed by Philip's Lutheran chaplain and in the presence of Luther's chief lieutenants, Philipp Melanchthon and Martin Bucer. Needless to say, a storm of criticism broke out. Writing to John Frederick of Saxony on 10 June 1540, Luther declared, "I am not ashamed of the counsel I gave even if it should become known throughout the world. Because it is unpleasant, however, I should prefer, if possible, to have it kept quiet." Was Luther a pagan? Did his associates, Bucer and Melanchthon, leave Christianity when they joined in Luther's advice? Of course not.
This was "Christian Polygamy in the Sixteenth Century," as Elder Orson Pratt termed it in a well-informed 1853 article. Citing the statement by Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer, to the effect that "the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage," Elder Pratt quite correctly concluded that the case of Philip of Hesse "proves most conclusively, that those Divines did sincerely believe it to be just as legal and lawful for a Christian to have two wives as to have one only."
Yet many Protestant Christians today are convinced that polygamy disqualifies Latter-day Saints from acceptance within Christendom. Why? "What is surprising," notes Manas Buthelezi, "is that the Christian Church has raised this essentially cultural matter to the level of a soteriological absolute."
Many observers of Christianity in Africa, including the illustrious modern Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner, have raised serious questions about whether Indo-European marital custom really belongs to the essence of being Christian. "Let it be publicly declared," writes H. W. Turner, "that a polygamous African church may still be classed as a Christian church." But if a "polygamous African church" can be called Christian, why cannot a once-polygamous American church?
Anti-Mormons would not, we assume, want to claim that the definition of "Christian" differs between Africa and North America? If so, they will have to pinpoint the precise longitude where the difference kicks in. (For Annotation see Notes 528-542.)
Polygamy Has Been Accepted Throughout Christian History
Mainstream Christians against polygamy need to be reminded of the role polygamy has played not only in Biblical history but also Christian history. In Offenders for a Word: Is Mormonism Christian? An Investigation of Definitions, part 3 by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, the authors, make a convincing argument of accepted polygamy throughout Christian history.
