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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mormons will also claim that the LDS church no longer practices polygamy. That’s not entirely accurate. They still do practice a form of polygamy, though not as readily apparent. An LDS man who marries in the temple is allowed to marry another woman in the temple if his first wife passes away. In LDS theology, he is still married to his first wife (who is waiting for him in heaven) when he marries his second, and he will have both wives in heaven. An LDS woman, however, cannot do the same if her husband passes away. Once she is married in the temple, she cannot marry another man in the temple if her first husband dies. Why? Because Mormons still do believe in polygamy in heaven where a man can have multiple wives but a woman cannot have multiple husbands.
 
Chris-WA said:
LDS have a basic misunderstanding of the Old Testament with regards to polygamy. They will often say that God commanded polygamy in the Old Testament, but this is nowhere found in the bible. God never commanded anyone in the bible to take plural wives. So where do they get this idea? It comes from Mormon scriptures–not the bible.

Now it is true that God permitted polygamy in the Old Testament, but that is a lot different from commanding it, as with the Mormons in modern times. So why did God permit polygamy in the Old Testament? To understand that, one must understand what happened when Israel broke the covenant with God when they made and worshipped the golden calf in the desert. Ever since the Israelites left Egypt, God had been trying to cure them of their addictions to the pagan gods and depraved practices (acquired over 400 years of living among a pagan society). But the Israelites proved to be a stiffnecked people, and the golden calf was the last straw.

The Israelites demonstrated to God that they were unwilling to live as trusting sons and daughters of God. As a result of this rebellion, God in effect put the Israelites on probation by instituting a multitude of new laws as chronicled in Deuteronomy. So what did their probation entail? The priesthood was taken away from all the tribes except the Levites, the only tribe that remained faithful. All kinds of restrictive dietary rules were enacted. Moses now permitted divorce for the first time because the Israelites had proven unable to live out marriage the way God had intended. And polygamy was now also permitted for the same reason. You see, polygamy was a practice of all the pagan kingdoms surrounding the Israelites, and they wanted to be like the other kingdoms, so God in effect said, “You asked for it, now you got it!” Often the punishment for sin is for God to allow us to continue in our sin and suffer the natural consequences. Look at all the mentions of polygamy in the Old Testament. They always end up badly.

What about before Moses? Mormons often claim that Abraham was commanded to be polygamous. This they get from their own LDS scriptures, not the bible. God never commanded Abraham to take multiple wives. God promissed Abraham that Sarah would conceive a child and that Abraham’s decendants would be as numerous as the stars. As time went by and Sarah did not conceive, Sarah lost her faith in God’s promise and told Abraham to take her servant Haggar as a concubine that so Haggar could bear a child for her. Abraham did so reluctantly and Haggar bore Ishmael. How did that work out for Abraham’s family? It tore them in two. After Sarah did eventually conceive (as promissed) and bore Isaac, she didn’t want anything to do with Haggar or Ishmael, so she forced Abraham to send them away from the tribe. Oh, and by the way, Ishmael is the father of the Arab race, and we all know how that family feud has been going on for centuries. If I were LDS I would not point to this instance as any kind of endorsement of polygamy. If anything, it’s just another example of how polygamy spells trouble, both then and now.

In the New Testament Jesus is asked about whether it is permissble for a man to put away his wife (divorce). What was his response? Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their (Israel’s) hearts, but in the beginning it was not so. Jesus says that what God has joined (sacrament of marriage), man is to not put asunder. The superior, and original, institution of marriage is a permanent, unbreakable bond. In the same way polygamy, like divorce, was permitted because of the hardness of Israel’s hearts. This is a far cry from the Mormon version.
Click to expand...
It is true that we get meaning and understanding from our scriptures, that is one of the differences that exist.
As far as Abraham, well, why would the Lord allow plural marriage with him? It would have been so simple to tell him “don’t do it”. The Lord had been communicating with him for a long time before Hagar. He could have communicated to Abraham that he will have a child with Sarah so don’t even bother with Hagar. But He didn’t. What was the reason?
If it was so bad, the Lord had a chance to stop it with Isaac, or with Jacob, but did not. Instead, Jacob was bleassed to be the father of the house of Israel, God’s “chosen” people.
To me, all this indicates that plural marriage was not simply tolerated, but there was a purpose behind it. The Bible does not spell this out, and it is understandable why there is such opposition to it.
 
Todd520 said:
Are you asking for Chester to provide the verse, or for others to refute it?
I would ask that Chester should provide a reference to prove his statement.
Click to expand...
Matt 19:5
and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’

Here’s your problem. Joseph Smith claimed that Christianity had become corrupt. He then proceeded to deny a central moral teaching of the faith.

Why should anyone take him seriously?

Why should anyone doubt Jesus when he promised that he would be with the Church until the end of time?
 
flyonthewall said:
It is true that we get meaning and understanding from our scriptures, that is one of the differences that exist.
As far as Abraham, well, why would the Lord allow plural marriage with him? It would have been so simple to tell him “don’t do it”.
Click to expand...
Was Hagar his wife? I don’t think so. She was a concubine–something less than the status of a wife. Nowhere does Hagar have the title of wife as Sarah does. Here is God talking about Hagar in Genesis 21:12-13:
But God said to Abraham: "Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Heed the demands of Sarah, no matter what she is asking of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants shall bear your name. As for the son of the slave woman, I will make a great nation of him also, since he too is your offspring.
Hagar is never referred to as a wife, but as a concubine and a slave woman. Certainly not the same situation as Joseph Smith with his wives.
The Lord had been communicating with him for a long time before Hagar. He could have communicated to Abraham that he will have a child with Sarah so don’t even bother with Hagar. But He didn’t. What was the reason?
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know why God decides when to intervene and when not to. He could have stopped a lot of people in the bible from making many bad decisions. But he didn’t. I think that’s called free will. The important thing here is the context. Notice it’s not God who tells Abraham to take Hagar as a concubine—it’s Sarah. And look how Sarah does it–she blames God for her not conceiving (Gen 16:2):
Sarai said to Abram: "The LORD has kept me from bearing children. Have intercourse, then, with my maid; perhaps I shall have sons through her.
And just a couple of verses later, look how it turns out. Now Sarah is blaming Abraham (Gen 16:4-5):
*He had intercourse with her, and she became pregnant. When she became aware of her pregnancy, she looked on her mistress with disdain. *So Sarai said to Abram: “You are responsible for this outrage against me. I myself gave my maid to your embrace; but ever since she became aware of her pregnancy, she has been looking on me with disdain. May the LORD decide between you and me!”
Hardly sounds like a good thing, does it? No, this is a broken family situation–all because Abraham and Sarah were impatient with God’s apparent lack of urgency in keeping his promiss. You are focussed on why God didn’t to this or why God didn’t do that. Your focus should instead be on what did God do, what did Abraham and Sarah do, and what were the consequences.
If it was so bad, the Lord had a chance to stop it with Isaac, or with Jacob, but did not. Instead, Jacob was bleassed to be the father of the house of Israel, God’s “chosen” people. To me, all this indicates that plural marriage was not simply tolerated, but there was a purpose behind it. The Bible does not spell this out, and it is understandable why there is such opposition to it.
Click to expand...
God made a covenant with Abraham, and God doesn’t break His covenants even if we do. God promissed Abraham that he would be the father of nations, and He had to live up to that covenant whether Abraham and his decendants made good choices or not. If we want to determine whether polygamy was commanded by God or not in the bible, first we must see if there are any explicit commands to do so. We agree there are none. Absent specific scriptural references, we must look at the context. I think the context is pretty clear in the case of Abraham that this cooky idea came from Sarah, not from God, and only led to trouble. Even so, God continues to work with His imperfect children.
 
I think Jesus was pretty clear about it. What it says in Genesis, he reiterated. That a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Not wives. Marriage is meant for one man and one woman. Nowhere in the bible does it mention anything about celestial marriages, and in fact scripture tells us in heaven there will be no more marriage. Seems like Joe Smith was teaching the opposite of Christ’s teachings.
 
flyonthewall said:
…He was okay as long as he stayed with what God have given him. It is when he strayed there was a problem…Again, it was not the number of wives but those that were not approved…neither does it eliminate wives that are given by the Lord…David’s wives were given to him by the Lord, and Solomon did not run into trouble until he went after “strange women”, or women not approved of by God.
It was not the number of wives, but going outside of the Lord’s boudries.
Click to expand...
Okay. Tell me more about this idea, because this is also something I don’t see in the text, that the wife has to be “approved”.

Are you really trying to say that the root problem with Bathsheba was not that David was lusting after someone else’s wife, but that God had not “approved” her for David?
 
PaulDupre said:
??? :eek:

Wow, that speaks volumes about Mormonism.
Click to expand...
The faith that started with Adam, and the Lord continued through Abraham. Do you believe Jesus came to start a new religion? or to restore that which was at the beginning?
The Bible gives credit to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it really was the truth that started with Adam.
 
JHow said:
Okay. Tell me more about this idea, because this is also something I don’t see in the text, that the wife has to be “approved”.

Are you really trying to say that the root problem with Bathsheba was not that David was lusting after someone else’s wife, but that God had not “approved” her for David?
Click to expand...
I used the term “approved” loosely. David was given wives by the Lord, it is when David went after someone that was not given by the Lord that he stepped over the bounds. Yes Bathsheba was someone else’s wife, which runs into the “Thou shalt not covet” and “Thou shalt not commit adultery” rules, which made it all the more serious.
With Solomon, he went after women from nations that the Lord clearly stated not to mingle with. Wives from the house of Israel would have been fine, but not from “outsiders”.
 
Chris-WA said:
God made a covenant with Abraham, and God doesn’t break His covenants even if we do. God promissed Abraham that he would be the father of nations, and He had to live up to that covenant whether Abraham and his decendants made good choices or not. If we want to determine whether polygamy was commanded by God or not in the bible, first we must see if there are any explicit commands to do so. We agree there are none. Absent specific scriptural references, we must look at the context. I think the context is pretty clear in the case of Abraham that this cooky idea came from Sarah, not from God, and only led to trouble. Even so, God continues to work with His imperfect children.
Click to expand...
A covenant is a two way promise with the Lord. If we do not hold up our end, the Lord is not bound to hold up His…“if you do that, I will do this”.
So I agree, the Lord does not break covenants, we do.
 
flyonthewall said:
The faith that started with Adam, and the Lord continued through Abraham. Do you believe Jesus came to start a new religion? or to restore that which was at the beginning?
The Bible gives credit to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it really was the truth that started with Adam.
Click to expand...
I believe Paul Dupre took particular exception to the bit about: “Jesus Christ did not come to found his own church…”

Obviously, we think He came to found His Church. And no, we don’t think we live in the same relationship to God as Adam did at the beginning. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, but clearly we are not ancient Jews. Guess it depends on your definition of ‘new religion’.
 
flyonthewall said:
The faith that started with Adam, and the Lord continued through Abraham. Do you believe Jesus came to start a new religion? or to restore that which was at the beginning?
The Bible gives credit to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it really was the truth that started with Adam.
Click to expand...
Christ did not come to restore a church. Christ came to restore what was lost through Adam’s disobedience–which is nothing less than divine sonship for all of God’s children. Ultimately, sin is our refusal of divine sonship. Through His complete and total self-sacrifice, Christ took sin out at its source and thus reopened the door to divine sonship. He also established the New Covenant (under the sign of the Eucharist) to fulfill and supersede all the previous covenants of the Old Testament. In order that divine sonship be made available to the world, Christ established His Church through Peter and the other Apostles, and gave them the mission to baptise all nations. The Church is the kingdom and world-wide family of God.
 
flyonthewall said:
A covenant is a two way promise with the Lord. If we do not hold up our end, the Lord is not bound to hold up His…“if you do that, I will do this”.
So I agree, the Lord does not break covenants, we do.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with you here, and perhaps this is a major difference between Mormonism and Catholicism. You describe a covenant as a two-way promise, more like a contract, wherein if one of the parties fails to live up to their end of the bargain, the contract becomes null and void. But that’s not what a covenant is. It is much deeper than that. A covenant creates a permanent family bond which is unbreakable. A covenant is less like a contract and more like gravity. If I don’t like being constrained by the effects of gravity I can try to break free by jumping off a building, but instead of breaking free of gravity, I would only demonstrate it. Likewise, when we try to break a covenant, we don’t release ourselves from it or release God from His promises. What we do is trigger the covenant curses that result from our failure to live up to our oath. God, however, will continue to live up to His oaths no matter how hard we try to rebel.

All the covenants have the same elements. We swear an oath to God and God swears an oath to us. In general, that oath is He will be our God and we will be His people. To swear an oath is far more encompassing than making a promiss. It’s so much so in fact, that without God’s help we are unable to keep any covenant. It requires nothing less than divine aid. Whom do we swear this oath by? God Himself, because we know going in that we will only be able to keep the covenant, (which demands total giving of self) with God’s divine help. Whom does God swear the oath by? Himself, since there is no one greater to swear by, as the scriptures stated when God swore oaths to His people.

Secondly, covenants are like coins with two sides. On the one side are the blessings of keeping the covenant. On the other side are the consequences of violating the covenent–which are the covenant curses. When the Israelites tried to rebel against the oaths they swore to God, they triggered consequences that were painful, but the covenant was still in force and God was still bound and remained faithful to His promisses, even when Israel rebelled.

Third, all the covenants have a mediator and a sign. The mediators of the major covenants were Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Christ Himself. The corresponding signs of those covenants were the Sabbath, the rainbow, circumcision, the passover, the throne of David and temple, and the Eucharist.

Finally, all the covenants expanded the form of God’s family. The covenant with Adam gave God’s family the form of a marital bond between wife and husband. The covenant with Noah expanded this to a household made up of Noah, his wife, and extended family. The covenant with Abraham expanded God’s family to a tribe made up of many households. The covenant with Moses made God’s family a holy nation made up of tribes. The covenant with David elevated the nation of Israel to a national *kingdom *that would rule other nations. And finally the New Covenant expanded God’s family to a world-wide kingdom, which we call the Catholic (Universal) Church.

So covenants are much more than two-way promisses. Covenants are nothing less than the way God has expanded his family throughout salvation history. This explains why we Catholics don’t view biblical history as a series of failed dispensations like the Mormons do. We view salvation history as one continual story gradually building upon itself as God fathered His family throughout the centuries by keeping all of His promises even when we did not.
 
flyonthewall said:
It is only clear to those who have no interest in learning the facts from both sides.
Here is a link to counter your link. (if it is against board policy to link to site that will counter the arguments of a link posted by another…sorry)
fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html

As I pointed out on the other thread, there are some pretty prominent OT figures that would have strayed from Christian teaching on marriage and sex too. They are revered and found favor in the sight of the Lord. How is that if the Lord does not change?
Click to expand...
Why would OT figures have Christian teachings on marriage?
 
As I read the recent comments I have to laugh out loud. When did God every tolerate or accept sin? How do we pretend that God allows his most righteous servants in the OT to live in polygamy without every condemning it? Someone has lost their mind in a major way. God does not tolerate one iota of unrighteousness. It is for this reason that our Savior died for us, that he bled on the cross, that through his stripes we are made whole.

We have no ability to condemn polygamy by use of the OT or the NT because it is not condemned in either. A Bishop must be the husband of one wife; that is the only command that was given about monogamy.

Brothers and sisters we are better than this and we must provide better responses rather than such…weak answers. We are not standing on the foundation of Christ. Where you must turn is to Tradtion for your answers. Trying to prove them by scriptures will only set you up to fail. Polygamy was never condemned and the most holy prophets of old practiced it. It was not accepted because it was a “cultural” thing. Should we now accept homosexuality because it is the new cultrual thing? God forbid.
 
Mormons have been shown over and over how polygamy was never commanded by God. They continue to view God’s mercy (as with Abraham) as God accepting sin. They do this, it can’t be helped, and they prefer to continue in darkness. So be it. 🤷

Jesus most certainly, and clearly, taught that marriage is between one man and one woman. Mormons don’t want to accept the teachings of Jesus, yet, want to call themselves Christians.

I don’t know how this is a failing on our part.
 
If we are Christians, we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ written down for us in the New Testament.
If we are Jewish, we follow the teachings of God and the prophets written down for us in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) and sacred writings.

If I am a Christian, can I follow the OT practice of “an eye for an eye” or am I bound by Christ’s teaching of “turn the other cheek”?

Obviously, as Christians, we are bound to the teachings of Jesus Christ on every matter. I believe that Mormons are trying to justify JS polygamous relationships by comparing him to the Old Testament prophets in the hopes that LDS followers won’t study up on the subject and will be comforted by the fact that some prophets of the OT had more than one wife (or concubine).

However, as discussed before on other threads, God has never commanded it.
 
JeanMichel said:
As I read the recent comments I have to laugh out loud. When did God every tolerate or accept sin? How do we pretend that God allows his most righteous servants in the OT to live in polygamy without every condemning it? Someone has lost their mind in a major way. God does not tolerate one iota of unrighteousness. It is for this reason that our Savior died for us, that he bled on the cross, that through his stripes we are made whole.

We have no ability to condemn polygamy by use of the OT or the NT because it is not condemned in either. A Bishop must be the husband of one wife; that is the only command that was given about monogamy.

Brothers and sisters we are better than this and we must provide better responses rather than such…weak answers. We are not standing on the foundation of Christ. Where you must turn is to Tradtion for your answers. Trying to prove them by scriptures will only set you up to fail. Polygamy was never condemned and the most holy prophets of old practiced it. It was not accepted because it was a “cultural” thing. Should we now accept homosexuality because it is the new cultrual thing? God forbid.
Click to expand...
Tolerate means to permit or allow something to be done without stopping it. God allows bad things to happen all the time. You are mixing up what is allowed to be done (which is how I read the OT stories that mention plural wives) and what is right. Behavior, and morality is behavior, is distinct from the “rules”.

As someone mentioned above divorce was permitted, but only because people’s hearts were hard.

To your point about tradition - while perfectly true, tradition demands one wife - that argument is useless if you are debating a Mormon who doesn’t accept tradition.

Note that our Mormon friend did not waste time by trying to claim that polygamy is permitted because of a revelation by Joe Smith.

We were really trying to limit the discussion to the OT and see if we could draw firm conclusions one way or the other.

One final point, we haven’t brought it up but there is clearly a Jewish tradition for one wife, that we have not even brought into the discussion yet.

I think what you characterize as “weakness”, is a difference in debating style.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top