Luther's Polygamy? A Response to Mormon Apologists

There was a derailed discussion on a discussion board concerning Mormonism and polygamy  (some of the discussion was deleted, some was moved here).  As is standard per this topic, a Mormon defender entered the following Martin Luther quote into evidence as proof that the great Reformer likewise advocated polygamy:

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." - Martin Luther

To frame out the context of this discussion, a Mormon had stated, "Comments regarding Luther...and the followers of Luther...are appropriate in here when Luther actually approved of the very thing that followers of Luther are coming in here to lambaste US over." The Mormon goal is to point out "hypocrisy, double standards, 'mote and beam,' etc." In essence, as I see it, the Mormon argument is: if the polygamist finger is pointed at the Mormon church, don't ignore the fact that the same finger should also be pointed at Luther. One old Roman Catholic writer captured the heart of this controversy, "Perhaps this juxtaposition of Luther and the Mormon may be offensive to some of his friends. But we shall have the occasion to prove that Mormonism may confidently look up to Luther as a patron." On this topic, Rome's defenders have been supplying ammunition to Mormon apologists for years. We'll see below this very Luther quote came from a Roman Catholic author hostile to Luther and the Reformation.

It's easy to see why Mormons gravitate to this quote: it does indeed appear to present Luther as advocating blatant polygamy. Luther appears to be stating polygamy doesn't contradict scripture and that one should simply rely on their conscience and personal interpretation of "the word of God" to justify it. While I've been over this quote before, let's take a fresh look. We'll see that Luther was not advocating radical polygamy. We'll also see that the quote in context says something much different than the way it comes off in its propaganda form splattered all throughout cyberspace.

Documentation
The quote was cited as "Luter, Martin. De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329–330." The person who provided the reference said it was taken from the website of a Christian group "extolling polygamy." Perhaps it was this one? The same exact reference in the same exact form is presented.

The English form of the quote is exact to that as found in Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther, minus "pp. 329-330," and it's highly probable this is where the quote, in this form, was taken from. I doubt that Father O'Hare was responsible for the English rendering, though I've not been able to identify which secondary source he took it from (his English version appears to be his solely). More often than not, Father O'Hare simply did the equivalent of a cut-and-paste from hostile sources against Luther and the Reformation.  Wherever he took it from, we'll see below that O'Hare's version plays fast and loose with the context. Father O'Hare stated,

Luther was an out-and-out believer in polygamy. To say that he did not "counsel" polygamy, or that he advised that it should be kept secret as a sort of matter of "conscience," is utterly beside the facts. When Brück, the Chancellor of the Duke of Saxe-Weimer, heard that Carlstadt in 1524 advocated polygamy he consulted Luther on the new and pernicious teaching. The Reformer, not in the least abashed, openly and distinctly stated: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459.) Many other clear statements wherein Luther sanctions polygamy might be reproduced here, but the one given above will suffice for the present.

In regard to the first part of the reference "De Wette II, 459": Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette was a Protestant scholar well-known for putting together an extensive collection of Luther's letters. Volume II:459 can be found here. The text reads,

This is the opening paragraph of a letter Luther wrote to Chancellor Gregory Brück on Jan. 27, 1524. Brück was a political figure-head (and supporter of the Reformation) in Electoral Saxony (LW 49:50). The letter does include comments about polygamy.

The second reference (not used by O'Hare) claims to be from the same De Wette volume, pointing to the earlier pages 329-330. These pages present Luther's letter to Spalatin, April 22, 1523 (the letter begins on page 329 and concludes on page 330). There is nothing though about polygamy in the letter, at all! If one does an online search for the phrase, "De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330," you'll discover this bogus reference repeated throughout cyberspace, most notably in Wikipedia's page, Polygamy in Christianity (see footnote #38). "pp. 329-330" isn't a reference to De Wette II at all, but rather to the 1987 TAN reprint of Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther, pages 329-330. Those are the pages in which Father O'Hare utilizes De Wette II, 459 and uses the quote in question.

Context

To my knowledge, there is no official English translation of the short letter presented in De Wette II, 459. Extended sections are available, typically from hostile Roman Catholic sources. For instance, Hartmann Grisar presents it, as does Audin. The following excerpt comes from Roman Catholic writer, J. Verres, Luther, An Historical Portrait, pp. 312-313. 

When in 1524 Carlstadt, then at Orlamünde, advocated polygamy, Brück, the Chancellor of the Duke of Saxe-Weimar, consulted Luther on this point. The reply was that such a thing could not be considered as forbidden in the new Law. Let the prince answer: "The husband must, by the word of God, be sure and certain in his own conscience, that it is lawful to him. Let him enquire of those who can make him sure through the word of God; whether this be done by Carlstadt or by anyone else this matters not to the prince. For if the man is uncertain, he cannot become certain through the consent of the prince, who in a matter of this sort cannot decide anything. It is the duty of the priests, to answer with the word of God . . .I confess that if a man wishes to marry several wives, I cannot forbid it, nor is it in opposition to the Holy Scriptures; but I would not that such an example should be introduced amongst Christians, who ought to omit even lawful things for the sake of avoiding scandal and leading a pure life, as S. Paul demands. For it is very unbecoming to Christians, eagerly to pursue, for their own comfort, their liberty to its last consequences and yet to neglect the common and necessary duties of charity. Therefore I have not in my preaching opened this window, and I hardly believe, a Christian can be so far abandoned by God, that a man who by God's action is hindered (from the use of conjugal rights) should be unable to contain himself. But let things go where they go. Perhaps they will even introduce circumcision at Orlamünde and will become Jews entirely."

Conclusion

When the Latin text is consulted from De Wette II, 459, O'Hare's version is demonstrably odd. He has reversed the sentences. The first sentence actually appears further into the text ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis"). O'Hare's second and third sentences appear before it. O'Hare simply produced a sloppy summary of the opening of the letter, if it's his English translation at all. 

But there are greater problems with O'Hare's rendering. Luther was not simply saying, as O'Hare wants his readers to believe,  that a person wanting to be a bigamist needs nothing more than a certain conscience to justify it.  True, Luther does say that a person wanting a second wife needs to be sure of it himself ("Oportere ipsum maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmum ac certum per verbum Dei, sibi haec licere,"). Roman Catholic writers have jumped all over this. What O'Hare and many of Rome's defenders leave out is Luther's emphasis, that the prince had no jurisdiction in such a matter because "It is the duty of the priests, to answer with the word of God." Grisar's English version renders it as "For if the fellow is not sure of his case, then the permission of the Prince will not make him so; nor is it for the Prince to decide on this point, for it is the priests business to expound the Word of God, and, as Zacharias says, from their lips the Law of the Lord must be learned. " Luther is not simply saying to look into your heart and then do what you want. He's saying that secular authority should not decide on the matter, but rather spiritual authority. This paradigm was used later by the Wittenberg theologians during the Phillip of Hesse scandal. Phillip sought permission from theological leaders to take a second wife.

After this, Luther does say "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture," but that is not the conclusion of the sentence (as O'Hare has it).  He goes on to immediately say,

...but I would not that such an example should be introduced amongst Christians, who ought to omit even lawful things for the sake of avoiding scandal and leading a pure life, as S. Paul demands. For it is very unbecoming to Christians, eagerly to pursue, for their own comfort, their liberty to its last consequences and yet to neglect the common and necessary duties of charity. Therefore I have not in my preaching opened this window, and I hardly believe, a Christian can be so far abandoned by God, that a man who by God's action is hindered (from the use of conjugal rights) should be unable to contain himself. But let things go where they go.

O'Hare leaves this out entirely! Note this interesting observation from McGiffert:

Some of the radical Anabaptists undertook to introduce polygamy, appealing to the patriarchal order of society in justification of their position. Even among Luther's followers and associates there was no little uncertainty about the matter, as was not altogether surprising when the old order of things was undergoing revision at so many points, including the marriage of monks, priests, and near relatives. But Luther himself was unalterably opposed to any such revolution. Monogamy he considered, under ordinary circumstances, alone tolerable in a Christian community, and held that no Christian ruler has any moral right to legalize polygamy. At the same time, finding no explicit prohibition in the Bible, he believed exceptions might be allowed in certain extreme cases such as are now generally recognized in Protestant countries as justifying divorce. Writing Chancellor Bruck about the matter in 1524, he said: I confess I am not able to forbid anybody to take more than one wife if he wishes to do so, nor do the sacred Scriptures forbid him. But I do not want this custom introduced among Christians, for it behooves them to give up things which are permitted, that scandal may be avoided and honorable living promoted, as Paul everywhere demands.

When O'Hare states, "Luther was an out-and-out believer in polygamy" he either grossly ignored the context, or perhaps never saw the context.  Rome's defender Hartmann Grisar explained the situation which provoked the letter was the sickness of a wife preventing "matrimonial intercourse." One must not immediately place this situation in a 21st century context. Offspring in the sixteenth century were of vital importance. Luther's response was not an all out anything goes. Rather, the comment was directed to an exception (For more on the "exception," see my earlier blog article). It is true Luther allowed for polygamy, but only in a very narrow sense. Heinrich Boehmer points out that it was only to be in cases of,

...severe necessity, for instance, if the wife develops leprosy or becomes otherwise unfit to live with her husband… But this permission is always to be restricted to such cases as severe necessity. The idea of legalizing general polygamy was far from the reformers mind. Monogamy was always to him the regular form of matrimony… (Luther And The Reformation in Light of Modern Research, 213-214).

This radical comment from Luther under scrutiny here was prompted by Luther's ex-colleague, Carlstadt. Carlstadt condoned a man taking a second wife. Von Ranke says of Carlstadt,

His rash and confused mind led him entirely to confound the national with the religious element of the Old Testament. Luther expected that before long circumcision would be introduced at Orlamunde [where Carlstadt was preaching], and thought it necessary seriously to warn the elector against attempts of this nature [source].

After Carlstadt had become increasingly radical, he left Wittenberg's faculty. Carlstadt went to Orlamunde in the Thuringian countryside, right around the time this letter from Luther was written (Jan. 27, 1524). The interesting thing about the quote in question is that by this time, Luther had a grave distrust of Carlstadt, yet in this letter Luther states, "it is the priests business to expound the Word of God." The way I read it, Luther is saying that secular authorities are not to interpret the Bible on this point. Rather, it is the job of spiritual authorities. For better or for worse, Carlstadt was the spiritual authority in Orlamunde. Early in 1524 the Wittenberg faculty took steps in attempting to recall Carlstadt from Orlamunde in order to try to curb his radical nature. They still held out some sort of hope that he wasn't too far gone in his radical leanings. The bigger point for Luther was not bigamy as such, but that secular authorities didn't have jurisdiction to interpret the Bible.

Was Luther the "patron saint" of Mormon polygamy? Hardly. While one could disagree with Luther's exception in regard to bigamy or while one could easily say Luther was wrong to even offer an exception, it's simply historically inaccurate to say Luther supported bigamy or polygamy in a Mormon sense. Had a Mormon defender read this quote in context, the difficulty in squaring Luther's view with their view is easily seen.  

I think it's ridiculous for Mormon apologists to use Luther on this issue. They paint him as some sort of all out polygamist, where, as I've studied it, Luther's dabbling in polygamy was typically hypothetical and cautioned, or out right denied. True, Luther got himself into mess with the scandal of Phillip of Hesse, but even in that, he was reluctant to authorize the bigamous relationship Phillip wanted. It wasn't like he was looking to allow Phillip to have a good time with two wives. When the entire situation was exposed, Phillip's supporters began writing books defending polygamy. Luther then wrote things like, "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol. 3 1532-1546 , p. 214).

Luther and the Spawn of Satan: Mormon Argumentation

Recently I came across an argument on a Mormon-related discussion board. It went something like this:

1. Mormons: God has offspring
2. Counter-argument: if Mormons believe God has offspring, they should consistently hold also that Satan procreates and has spirit-children.

Now the nature of this argument doesn't appear to have anything remotely related to Luther and the Reformation. Note though the following arguments from what appears to be by someone who is pro-LDS:

The founder of the Reformation believed that [Satan had offspring], so maybe you shouldn't be attacking him so much:

"How often have not the demons called `Nix,' drawn women and girls into the water, and there had commerce with them, With fearful consequences."

"I myself saw and touched at Dessay, a child...which had no human parents, but had proceeded from the Devil. He was twelve years old, and, in outward form, exactly resembled ordinary children."

...some of Father* Luther's beliefs were bizarre.

...he was also a true believer in changelings. Luther was very much a product of his own times with respect to superstitious beliefs and practices. He sincerely believed that Satan was responsible for the malformed children known as changelings, and that such satanic child exchanges occurred frequently. {footnote 9} In Luther's theological view, a changeling was a child of the devil without a human soul, "only a piece of flesh." This view made it easy to justify almost any abuse of an unfortunate child thought to be a changeling, including the ultimate mistreatment: infanticide. Luther himself had no reservations about putting such children to death. {footnote 10}

Martin Luther, Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912-1921), v. 4, pp. 357-358. Martin Luther, Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden (Weimar: Böhlau, 1912-1921), v. 5, p. 9.

*(Father of the Reformation, that is. Plus, he was a Catholic priest)

The response to this was basically,"Luther never considered himself a Prophet or Apostle." To which was replied:

The LDS are among the most aware of that. But the issue isn't what Luther considered himself to be. The issue is what YOU REFORMATIONISTS think of Luther. He's the father and founder of your Reformation--a Reformation that you think was essential to the survival of Christianity. A Reformation that you think had God's stamp of approval.

When members of your cult go wild with claims that only a brainwashed idiot would believe that satan could have literal offspring (and try to make it look like maybe the LDS believe such a thing when they don't)--and then it's shown that your founder did actually believe such a thing--I guess the only response you have been conditioned to give is the old "But Luther never claimed to be a prophet" fallacy.

What makes that response a fallacy is the fact that it's irrelevant, like a red herring is. The issue is why you'd call your own founder a brainwashed idiot.

There's a lot to deal with here. The most important aspect of the argument is the conclusion about "Father Luther." This was the main argument all along, an equivocation between Luther and Joseph Smith.  It's being argued that Luther and subsequent Protestantism can be accurately paralleled by Joseph  Smith and the Later Day Saints.  In other words, one can't consistently criticize the Mormons as a Protestant.  As we'll, see, this is not an accurate parallel.

Certainly Luther was a key figure during the 16th Century Reformation. As to "father and founder" of the Reformation, it wasn't as if the church was meandering along nicely, and then Luther and the Reformation fell out of the sky. No, the issues that sparked the controversy between Luther and the Roman church were already an area of controversy with many voices preceding his, which is why there's a category of "pre-Reformers." In other words, it's debatable that Luther was "the father and founder of your Reformation." Certainly Luther was an integral part of the Reformation, but if what is meant by "father and founder" is that Luther began a Reformation movement that did not exist before, this is historically inaccurate. Now apply this to Joseph Smith. It's generally conceded that the Mormon church does not have theological predecessors previous to Mr. Smith. That is, the material presented in the Book of Mormon did in essence, fall out of the sky. Previous to Smith, the record of Mormon and Moroni wasn't part of church tradition. It had to be supernaturally revealed to Mr. Smith. The Reformation was not supernaturally revealed to Luther.

The second aspect of the concluding remarks is the presuppositional argument in regard to who owns the word "cult." The Later Day Saints certainly deviate from orthodox Christian beliefs, particularly in regard to the nature of God, Jesus Christ, salvation, and a host of other doctrinal issues. If one defines "cult" as a significant deviation from orthodoxy, then certainly the LDS qualifies as a cult. On the other hand, are those within the Protestant tradition also in a cult? First, let's pretend the original Reformers were a splinter group from the Roman church.  I've never come across a Romanist arguing that the Reformers were cult leaders. They were originally heretics according to Rome, now, centuries later, Protestants are "separated brethren." Joseph Smith was told by divine revelation, "that none of the churches on the earth had the fullness of truth." Luther, on the other hand, wasn't told this by divine revelation, nor did he seek to start a new church because, he like Smith thought "So great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was [ … ] to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong." The Reform movement took place within an existing structure, Luther being one voice among many others at the time involved in the same struggle. Smith appears on the scene claiming to be a modern-day prophet not attempting to reform an existing church structure, but rather to build something quite new and novel.

The third aspect of the concluding argument was subsequent Protestants not respecting Luther because they don't follow every single thing he held. This is perhaps the easiest part of the response, because subsequent Protestants don't generally consider Luther to be an infallible prophet that delivered new revelation. Luther himself admitted his shortcomings and failures, and even pointed out that some of his writings had errors. To follow Luther then, would be to consider his writings in the way he wanted them to: "I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all, remain in obscurity and go by the board." Did Joseph Smith think the same about his writings or prophetical messages?

The fourth aspect of this argument is that which originally interested me: that only "a brainwashed idiot" would believe that Satan has offspring, when in fact, Luther believed it. This topic and the Luther quotes being used will be addressed in another blog entry.

Comparing Mormonism and theological Liberalism in the Two main candidates Faiths

1.  An excellent summary of the bottom line of the Mormon religion.  It is not Christian, as it at its core denies monotheism and God as the eternal uncaused Creator of all things.

"The Real Issue with Mormonism:  God is an exalted man" by James White
http://americanvision.org/6549/the-real-issue-with-mormonism-god-is-an-exalted-man/

Here is just one excerpt, I encourage everyone to read Dr. White's article and also get his two books on Mormonism, which are mentioned and highlighted in this article at American Vision.

"We will look more at the evidence supporting this view of Mormonism below, but it must first be insisted that on any meaningful analysis of religious faith, Mormonism is far, far removed from Christianity. In fact, if one takes as one’s starting point the belief of a religion relating to God’s nature and God’s relationship to the universe, Mormonism is about as far removed on the theological spectrum from Christianity as any religion could be. Whether a religious movement believes in monotheism or polytheism is the first indicator of its nature and categorization, and on this point, Joseph Smith separated his followers for all time from Christianity when he made the statement, quoted above, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” In refuting this idea, Smith made it possible for me accurately and forthrightly to say today: Islamic theology of Allah is significantly closer to Christianity in its affirmation of God’s uniqueness, creatorship, and eternality, than Mormonism ever could be. This is a fact known to anyone who takes seriously the teachings of the General Authorities of the LDS Church."  Dr. James White

2.  President Obama's Faith - the article here by Denny Burk, linking to an interview that a journalist did with then Senator Barak Obama, shows he doesn't believe in the Bible or the doctrines that would make his "faith" true faith.  Also, he supports radical abortion and infanticide, same sex marriage, and refuses to call Islamic terrorism what it is.  And the Benghazi/Lybia scandal will eventually become worse than the Watergate/Nixon scandal, I think, given enough time.  Unfortunately, the main stream media is not reporting on this very much, and they and Obama's team seem to be trying to avoid it until after the election.  Among many other bad economic and social and defense policies . . .

"President Obama's Christianity" - By Denny Burk
http://www.dennyburk.com/president-obamas-christianity/

When Denny uses the term "liberal Christian" to describe President Obama, he means a theological liberal, which means Obama is not a Christian at all, since theological liberalism denies all the essentials of doctrine that make faith in Christ true faith in the real Christ.  J. Greshem Machen wrote a famous book, Christianity and Liberalism, in 1923, where he shows that theological liberalism using Christian words in main line churches, is not Christianity at all.

Denny Burk February 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

When I use the term “liberal Christian,” I mean to denote a theological liberal, which is not a synonym for political liberal. A person can have politically liberal views and still have conservative theological beliefs.

Excerpt: 

In short, though candidate Obama professes to be a Christian, his beliefs are that of a theological liberal. Here’s a summary with some quotes:

• He believes that “there are many paths to the same place,” and he doesn’t believe that God would “consign four-fifths of the world to hell” for not believing the gospel.

• When asked about his belief in the afterlife, he says he doesn’t know if there is one.

• Obama defines “sin” as “being out of alignment with my values.”

• Obama says that one need not embrace “Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior” to avoid judgment.

• When asked “Who’s Jesus to you,” what Obama didn’t say is as important as what he did say. He confesses Jesus to be a “historical figure” and “wonderful teacher” but says nothing about Jesus being a Savior, Messiah, or Son of God.

• He confesses that he doesn’t necessarily subscribe to his own church’s “set of doctrines.”

The Adventures of Mormon Missionaries

Sitting in my hotel room this morning I came across this clip of a man confronted by two young Mormon missionaries. In the end, it was rather a man confronting two Mormon missionaries. These Mormon kids end up like deer caught in the headlights by the end of the clip. Sure, it's easy to chuckle at them squirming. But as you watch the clip, notice... that's all that happens.

Perhaps these young men were challenged to rethink their Mormonism. Perhaps.

If you're going to rip someones beliefs down, I don't think that is enough. That's just... riping someones beliefs down. Wouldn't a less harsh approach against these particular Mormons been more appropriate? Wouldn't at least an attempt to present the Gospel have been a requirement of interaction? Lest anyone thinks I'm pointing fingers, the first finger pointed was directly at myself.