Mormons, What is your Position on Joseph Smith's Sexual Morality?

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Chesterton,
Christ was quoting Moses who wrote down what was revealed in Genesis. Moses was married to more than one wife. Abraham had more than one wife. Jacob (Israel) had more than one wife. David had more than one wife. Christ’s lineage through Mary was through lineage where more than one wife was not uncommon.

To say “they twain shall be one flesh” means the husband and the wife become unified as well as become “one flesh” to conceive children. Christ was saying that the original plan for marriage was an eternal plan for marriage, which Adam and Eve had–a marriage that “God hath joined together.”

I don’t think you would find Christ saying that Jacob did not have marriages that “God hath joined together.” He was talking about a type of marriage (eternal), not whether plural marriage was at some point in time given by God for His purposes.

That’s a convenient explanation, but it is not what Jesus said.

We have no evidence that plural messages were EVER accepted by any Christians.

 

[ParkerD]

That’s a convenient explanation, but it is not what Jesus said.

We have no evidence that plural messages were EVER accepted by any Christians.

So are you saying that Catholics throw out the entire Old Testament, since it shows that plural marriages were acceptable in many cases? Are you saying that Christ threw out the writings that became the Old Testament?

I suppose not. I am supposing that Catholics accept that the twelve tribes of Israel were not an accident nor a calamity in the eyes of God.

 

[Chris-WA]

By the way, keep in mind that Joseph Smith received the revelation about plural marriage as an “Abrahamic test”–and keep in mind that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar, which would certainly not have been following the laws of the Old Testament nor the guidance of conscience. Abraham was asked to do something that was contrary to what he “knew to be true” or “knew to be God’s law”. His test was to see if he would follow what he had been asked by revelation to do, and to see if he really and truly believed in the resurrection through the promise of the coming of Christ, or if the gospel for him was just “going through the motions” of belief.

I’m curious about your view that the polygamy revelation to JS was an “Abrahamic test.” Is that your opinion or is that backed up by official LDS teaching?

Your analogy comparing Abraham’s test with the polygamy revelation to JS seems faulty. Had God actually made Abraham go through with killing Isaac, then your analogy would work. But God never intended that Abraham actually kill Isaac. We all know that once Abraham proved his faith, God stopped it there. Whereas JS actually went through with polygamy, establishing new doctrine for the entire Church for the next 50+ years.

Mormons try to excuse polygamy by going way back to Old Testament practices. But it’s a losing argument because polygamy has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity–and that’s where we’re supposed to be now, right? We don’t do animal sacrifices anymore. We don’t do an eye for an eye anymore. We don’t adhere to scrict dietary laws anymore. Mormons took a giant step backward when they went for polygamy, and it will forever be a thorn in their side. LDS would have a much better argument could they show that polygamy was part of the early Christian faith of the New Testament. But it’s not there. Not in scripture, not in history. The only New Testament scripture dealing directly with the subject says don’t do it. Christianity fulfilled and surpassed the Old Covenant. Christ Himself restored marriage to it’s original intent. Why did the Mormons take marriage backwards?

LDS can dress it up all they want, but the historical truth of polygamy in the Mormon church doesn’t resemble any sort of divine inspiration. From the way Joseph secretly practiced it for years (even keeping it from his first wife Emma and then eventually threatening her with death if she didn’t accept it), to the way the church capitulated under pressure from the U.S. government–none of it says this was of God.

I wish LDS would just admit it was a mistake and move on. But they can’t, because to do so would invalidate Joseph Smith as a true prophet and collapse the entire church.

 

[Chris-WA]

So are you saying that Catholics throw out the entire Old Testament, since it shows that plural marriages were acceptable in many cases? Are you saying that Christ threw out the writings that became the Old Testament?

I suppose not. I am supposing that Catholics accept that the twelve tribes of Israel were not an accident nor a calamity in the eyes of God.

That’s kind of rediculous, don’t you think? That’s not at all what he is saying. Christ established the New Covenant. The New Covenant doesn’t reject the old, but perfects and surpasses it. Some elements of the Old Covenant were done away with. Animal sacrifices were gone, divorce was gone, polygamy was gone, priesthood authority was transferred from the Jews to the Apostles, etc.

 

[mark_a]

I t just seems to me that post-Jesus prophets tend to allow themselves plenty of extra “wives”. Muhammed, Smith, Koresh, and to mention the things Jim Jones was up to.

 

[benidict]

The scriptures state that all of David’s wives and concubines were given to him by God, and if he had wanted more, God would have given him more.

Doesn’t sound like it was merely tolerated.

id have to say you are correct my friend. there is actually a whole segment in the law dealing with this, and inheritance issues coming from such marital arrangements. however, later on the rabbis decided that plural marriages were not a very good thing. where ever your read of them in the bible, there is almost always an unhappy ending. so with the authority God gave them at the time, they banned the practice. and for good reason. Peace

 

[ParkerD]

I’m curious about your view that the polygamy revelation to JS was an “Abrahamic test.” Is that your opinion or is that backed up by official LDS teaching?

That entering into plural marriage was an “Abrahamic test” was, from reading I did as a youth, a commonly seen expression among the early LDS members as they described their reaction to the idea of plural marriage, which they did not want to do. The analogy can be seen in the recorded revelation where plural marriage is discussed and Abraham having been asked to sacrifice his son Isaac is recounted:

D & C 132: 29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
…
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
…
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, in the Lectures on Faith, described the need for “sacrifice of all things” that those who climb the “faith ladder” (my words) are going to need to be willing to make.

Your analogy comparing Abraham’s test with the polygamy revelation to JS seems faulty. Had God actually made Abraham go through with killing Isaac, then your analogy would work. But God never intended that Abraham actually kill Isaac. We all know that once Abraham proved his faith, God stopped it there. Whereas JS actually went through with polygamy, establishing new doctrine for the entire Church for the next 50+ years.

Yes, I can see why a person would not think the analogy should apply, as you noted since Abraham was stopped by the angel. But plural marriage was a different kind of test in that it was a test of the faith of more than one person. Clearly, if Joseph Smith had been commanded to enter into plural marriage and then at the point of proving his faithfulness the Lord removed the requirement, then no one else’s faith would have been tested. It would not work as a test for anyone else, given the precedent.

Mormons try to excuse polygamy by going way back to Old Testament practices. But it’s a losing argument because polygamy has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity–and that’s where we’re supposed to be now, right? We don’t do animal sacrifices anymore. We don’t do an eye for an eye anymore. We don’t adhere to scrict dietary laws anymore. Mormons took a giant step backward when they went for polygamy, and it will forever be a thorn in their side. LDS would have a much better argument could they show that polygamy was part of the early Christian faith of the New Testament. But it’s not there. Not in scripture, not in history. The only New Testament scripture dealing directly with the subject says don’t do it. Christianity fulfilled and surpassed the Old Covenant. Christ Himself restored marriage to it’s original intent. Why did the Mormons take marriage backwards?

Again, although I agree that Christianity included monogamy as the accepted and expected practice and I think that has been a good thing generally, I disagree as to whether God could reestablish the requirement that certain people practice plural marriage as a test of their faith and willingness to obey Him through His revealing His will. The issue becomes whether God provides ongoing revelation, and whether His revelation can test the faith of His people. His people are to be a “peculiar people” which stands out from the general practices of the world at large.

LDS can dress it up all they want, but the historical truth of polygamy in the Mormon church doesn’t resemble any sort of divine inspiration.

That is certainly where we disagree. I feel for those people who were asked to practice that commandment by revelation through a prophet of God. I wouldn’t have wanted to be in their shoes, but I am familiar with the idea of an Abrahamic test and I accept such an idea.

From the way Joseph secretly practiced it for years

Yes, he did that by revelation also. Peter, James and John were asked not to speak about the details of what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration, also. God can command that secrets be kept.

(even keeping it from his first wife Emma and then eventually threatening her with death if she didn’t accept it)

I disagree with this clause in what you wrote. It is not the case.

to the way the church capitulated under pressure from the U.S. government–none of it says this was of God.

I can see why a person would arrive at that conclusion. That is why I wrote that it is a deliberately placed “stumbling block” and I am fine with that being part of the plan of a perfect God who has all kinds of sifting processes to find those willing and desirous of doing the kind of serious soul-searching and gaining personal revelation into their life that Abraham did.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So are you saying that Catholics throw out the entire Old Testament, since it shows that plural marriages were acceptable in many cases? Are you saying that Christ threw out the writings that became the Old Testament?

I suppose not. I am supposing that Catholics accept that the twelve tribes of Israel were not an accident nor a calamity in the eyes of God.

No, I’m saying that Jesus gave us explicit clarification of marriage and many other Old Testament traditions. Joseph Smith doesn’t trump the teachings of Jesus for Christians.

This is one reason why Mormonism is not considered true Christianity by most Christians.

 

[Chris-WA]

That entering into plural marriage was an “Abrahamic test” was, from reading I did as a youth, a commonly seen expression among the early LDS members as they described their reaction to the idea of plural marriage, which they did not want to do. The analogy can be seen in the recorded revelation where plural marriage is discussed and Abraham having been asked to sacrifice his son Isaac is recounted:

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

And here we have the root of the problem. According to Genesis, God didn’t command Abraham to take Hagar as a concubine–Sarah did. Don’t you see what Joseph is doing here? He knows polygamy is going to be a really tough sell to the church, so he makes up a new story about Abraham being commanded by God, changing the biblical story to make polygamy more palatable.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

Mormons say that because there is no biblical scripture stating that God punished Abraham for taking a concubine, He must have approved of it and even commanded it. Again, look at the context. What happened as a result of Abraham taking Hagar as Sarah (not God) requested? It ended up in a bitter dispute that split the family in two and created a milleniums-long feud that exists to this day. Often our punishment for not trusting God and doing things our own way is to suffer the natural consequences of our bad choices.

36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law…

See what he does here? He equates Abraham’s obedience to sacrifice Isaac (true story) with Abraham’s obedience to polygamy (false story). Clever.

Yes, I can see why a person would not think the analogy should apply, as you noted since Abraham was stopped by the angel. But plural marriage was a different kind of test in that it was a test of the faith of more than one person. Clearly, if Joseph Smith had been commanded to enter into plural marriage and then at the point of proving his faithfulness the Lord removed the requirement, then no one else’s faith would have been tested…

Or the more practical answer–it would have looked really strange if Joseph was the only one in the church with the priviledge of multiple wives. He could only get away with that for so long.

Again, although I agree that Christianity included monogamy as the accepted and expected practice and I think that has been a good thing generally, I disagree as to whether God could reestablish the requirement that certain people practice plural marriage as a test of their faith and willingness to obey Him through His revealing His will. The issue becomes whether God provides ongoing revelation, and whether His revelation can test the faith of His people…

You minimize the importance of what Christ did for marriage in the New Covenant. It wasn’t just a case of the early Christians deciding for themselves that polygamy might not be suitable at this time. Christ elevated marriage to the status that had been intended by God from the very beginning–a sacred union of one man and one woman. Christians got the message loud and clear, and polygamy was no more. Polygamy is an inferior form of marriage that came from the surrounding pagan nations, and only received legal status in the OT as a concession due to the hardness of the people’s hearts. I don’t think God tests us by making us be less than we are.

Peter, James and John were asked not to speak about the details of what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration, also. God can command that secrets be kept.

Agreed. But when you throw secret sex into the equation the waters start to get murky.

I disagree with this clause in what you wrote. It is not the case.

You deny your own scriptures. Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 v 52&54:
And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive **all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph….

*And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave **unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. **But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed ***saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
Joseph tells Emma that God revealed to him that she must accept his new wives (which up until now he had tried to keep secret from her), or else face death. That’s the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card! By the way, how is that a test of faith for Emma? Do this or I will kill you. Doesn’t sound like Emma had much choice. Not a test of faith. More like a bank robbery.

 

[ParkerD]

And here we have the root of the problem. According to Genesis, God didn’t command Abraham to take Hagar as a concubine–Sarah did. Don’t you see what Joseph is doing here? He knows polygamy is going to be a really tough sell to the church, so he makes up a new story about Abraham being commanded by God, changing the biblical story to make polygamy more palatable.

Chris-WA,
The conjecture that Joseph Smith wanted polygamy to be “palatable” is a complete supposition, with no basis in historical fact and completely contrary to the historical records about the matter. As far as the relationship between God, Abraham, and Sarah, I think it is strikingly presumptuous to assume that every revelation that Abraham received from God is written up in the Bible, word for word.

Mormons say that because there is no biblical scripture stating that God punished Abraham for taking a concubine, He must have approved of it and even commanded it.

No, it’s called Joseph Smith receiving a revelation about the historical situation.

Again, look at the context. What happened as a result of Abraham taking Hagar as Sarah (not God) requested? It ended up in a bitter dispute that split the family in two and created a milleniums-long feud that exists to this day. Often our punishment for not trusting God and doing things our own way is to suffer the natural consequences of our bad choices.

Indeed, there has been a “bitter dispute”. God certainly had foreknowledge that this would happen in history. Abraham was described by James as the Friend of God and by Paul as a man of faith who received everlasting promises. Good can come from the opposition involved even in the history of the descendants of Ishmael as compared with the history of the descendants of Isaac. I don’t think of the birth of Ishmael as a punishment to Abraham for having made a “bad choice”.

See what he does here? He equates Abraham’s obedience to sacrifice Isaac (true story) with Abraham’s obedience to polygamy (false story). Clever.

The only basis for that conjecture being that Moses didn’t record whether Abraham was doing the Father’s will by having a son by Hagar. Ironic, since Jacob had sons by four wives and Jacob’s posterity became the twelve tribes of Israel and the subject of much of the Old Testament.

Abraham’s “obedience” to his wife, Sarah, is not anything like Abraham’s obedience to God regarding sacrificing Isaac. Sarah was doing an accepted thing within the culture of her day.

Joseph Smith and others were asked to do something completely outside of the expected cultural norm–thus the Abrahamic test was whether they would accept God’s word to do that, or tell themselves it couldn’t possibly be so (which Abraham could have done in the case of the sacrifice of Isaac–he could have fully justified himself in saying "I won’t do it–this can’t be true).

You minimize the importance of what Christ did for marriage in the New Covenant. It wasn’t just a case of the early Christians deciding for themselves that polygamy might not be suitable at this time. Christ elevated marriage to the status that had been intended by God from the very beginning–a sacred union of one man and one woman. Christians got the message loud and clear, and polygamy was no more. Polygamy is an inferior form of marriage that came from the surrounding pagan nations, and only received legal status in the OT as a concession due to the hardness of the people’s hearts. I don’t think God tests us by making us be less than we are.

So if you’re saying that six of the twelve tribes were punishments by God for disobedience, then I disagree. If you’re saying there should have been no such person as Joseph and no such occurrence as his being sold into Egypt, then I disagree. If you’re saying there should only have been six tribes of Israel, then I disagree. If you’re saying there should be no prophecies in the Old Testament about Ephraim and Judah becoming united one day under one leader, then I disagree.

You deny your own scriptures. Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 v 52&54:

And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive **all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph….

*And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave **unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. **But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed ***saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
​

“This commandment” was that she “cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else.” “Destroyed” means loss of exaltation–it has to do with the life after the spirit world.

The whole issue is preparing for exaltation, and showing the ability to do that by being willing to make personal sacrifices that may seem very hard and even contradictory. I don’t blame Emma for having difficulty with the whole idea of plural marriage. She knew Joseph as a man as well as Joseph as a prophet. She would face the hardest test of anyone in the situation. It is clear from history that she vacillated, but Joseph said she passed the test. (I agree with that in her case.)​

 

[zaffiroborant]

Sarah was doing an accepted thing within the culture of her day.

Exactly!! Sarah was following the teachings of men, (that’s what culture is) and not a commandment of God, when she ordered her property called Hagar and her husband to engage in sexual relations to fulfill her desire for children.

The resulting situation with Ishmael is not punishment, it isl the natural consequences of not trusting God to live up to his promises and taking matters in your own hands.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That is because “Christianity” was a term coined by outsiders. It did not originate with believers. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and of course the term “Jew” comes from being from the house of Judah, which is one tribe that was not carried away captive like the rest of the house of Israel.
So really the OT is not about Jews, but about the House of Israel, and before Jacob/Israel, was simply the faith of the Patriarchs.
So, did Jesus Christ establish a new, never before known religion? or was it a restoration of that which was from the beginning?

What Christ restored was our standing before God, which was lost by the sin of Adam and Eve. So we are restored, by the grace of God, to God’s Kingdom. Christ established the Kingdom of God on earth, with Himself at the head. The Church is the visible Kingdom.

What we see in the OT is Salvation history, which culminated in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Old Covenant was fulfilled by the New Covenant, which is Christ Himself.

 

[ParkerD]

Exactly!! Sarah was following the teachings of men, (that’s what culture is) and not a commandment of God, when she ordered her property called Hagar and her husband to engage in sexual relations to fulfill her desire for children.

The resulting situation with Ishmael is not punishment, it is the natural consequences of not trusting God to live up to his promises and taking matters in your own hands.

Zaffiroborant,

I get it. I agree that often to follow culture is to follow the “teachings of men.” But note that Paul included Sarah in his description of righteous examples who were full of faith (see Hebrews 11:11-13). I don’t perceive from the Biblical accounts that she was ever remonstrated by God for giving Hagar to Abraham to try and have a son. Abraham had not been told in the account in Genesis 15 that Sarah was to be the mother of the promised seed. He found that out later, after Ishmael was a fourteen-year-old youth, as recounted in Genesis 17 when Abraham laughed after he heard about that promise.

Is the “natural consequence” a good consequence, or a bad consequence?