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.
Chris-WA said:
I strongly disagree with you here, and perhaps this is a major difference between Mormonism and Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. We may have differing views on what a covenant is. This definition from the LDS.org website:
Covenant
Click to expand...
A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people. God sets specific conditions, and He promises to bless us as we obey those conditions. When we choose not to keep covenants, we cannot receive the blessings, and in some instances we suffer a penalty as a consequence of our disobedience.
Click to expand...
 
lax16 said:
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”?
Except that law, “an eye for an eye”, was fulfilled in Christ and is no longer in effect.
Click to expand...
Look, I am not trying to convince anyone to agree with me. A question was asked, I answered.
This is how we “deal” with it:
Plural marriage was accepted by God, if it was not, the major prophets of the OT would have been forbidden to do it. It is the Lord who directs when it is practiced and when it is not.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
 
Divorce keeps coming up as something the Lord tolerated.
My thoughts on the subject of divorce is, as is pointed out in Matthew 19, it was allowed due to the weakness of men but was not so from the beginning:
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Click to expand...
Remember the House of Israel had been in Egypt for 400 years or so, and when Moses led them out, the Lord tried to give them the fullness of the gospel, but they could not bear it.
So the Lord gave them a remedial set of laws that would prepare them for the fullness.
From the beginning divorce was not allowed, but plural marriage was. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came before Moses. If plural marriage was only tolerated, like divorce, then it would not have been permitted before Moses, like divorce.
 
LongJourney said:
Mr. Fly, the Bible says nothing about Jews practicing Christianity before Jesus. NOTHING. The BoM does. Which has more credibility?

cassiusuniversity.wordpress.com/mcb/

Man’s understanding of God, and how to please him, has evolved through the ages. You are like a bulldozer that has its steering locked. Please use the mind God gave you.
Click to expand...
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?
 
:confused:
So, did Jesus Christ establish a new, never before known religion? or was it a restoration of that which was from the beginning?
Click to expand...
He gave us a better understanding of what God wants us to do in order to please Him. How many times have I stated and restated this?

Now, getting back to my question-- what about the pre-Christian “Christianity” in the BoM?
 
LongJourney said:
:confused: He gave us a better understanding of what God wants us to do in order to please Him. How many times have I stated and restated this?

Now, getting back to my question-- what about the pre-Christian “Christianity” in the BoM?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what the question is.
The prophets of the BoM were given revelations of Christ, just like OT prophets were, though the revelations in the BoM have more detail.
 
flyonthewall said:
lax16;7074887:
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”?
Except that law, “an eye for an eye”, was fulfilled in Christ and is no longer in effect.
Click to expand...
Hi flyonthewall - I think you are missing my question. Just as God allowed His followers to practice the idea of “an eye for an eye” or “polygamy” doesn’t address the isue that JS was a prophet bringing forth another testament of Jesus Christ, not Moses or David, etc.

If Joseph Smith is/was a Christian, he would be bound to Christian teachings on all matters, right?

The Book of Mormon is (from the introduction): bold; mine
…the personal ministry of the **Lord Jesus Christ **among the Nephites soon after his reseurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel, outlines the plan of salvation, and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come.
In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. The record is not published in many languages as a new and additional witness that **Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God **and that all who will come unto him and obey the laws and ordinances of his **gospel **may be saved.

Nowhere does it state that JS was an OT prophet proclaiming a NT message. That is a new angle, IMHO, to justify his many relationships. OT prophets were not sealed to many women and certainly JS doesn’t match the criteria for a true prophet if we use the OT prophets as a measuring stick.

The BoM is not another testament of the Hebrew Bible, so stating that JS was a prophet like those of the OT just doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
lax16 said:
flyonthewall;7074979:
lax16;7074887:
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”?

Hi flyonthewall - I think you are missing my question. Just as God allowed His followers to practice the idea of “an eye for an eye” or “polygamy” doesn’t address the isue that JS was a prophet bringing forth another testament of Jesus Christ, not Moses or David, etc.

If Joseph Smith is/was a Christian, he would be bound to Christian teachings on all matters, right?

The Book of Mormon is (from the introduction): bold; mine
…the personal ministry of the **Lord Jesus Christ **
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
among the Nephites soon after his reseurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel, outlines the plan of salvation, and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come.
In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. The record is not published in many languages as a new and additional witness that **Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God **and that all who will come unto him and obey the laws and ordinances of his **gospel **may be saved.

Nowhere does it state that JS was an OT prophet proclaiming a NT message. That is a new angle, IMHO, to justify his many relationships. OT prophets were not sealed to many women and certainly JS doesn’t match the criteria for a true prophet if we use the OT prophets as a measuring stick.

The BoM is not another testament of the Hebrew Bible, so stating that JS was a prophet like those of the OT just doesn’t make sense.
I am not saying the Joseph Smith was an OT prophet, but that plural marriage is not inherently against the word of God, rather, it is in conformity with it when directed by the Lord.
The BoM is another testament of Jesus Christ, not of the Hebrew Bible.
You state that OT prophets were not sealed to many women, but then the Bible doesn’t even address that.
Click to expand...
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
Jesus was clear that marriage is for one man and one woman.
Click to expand...
Chesterton and Mark A,
No, it does not appear from the four gospels that He was clear about “marriage is for one man and one woman.”

However, for me marriage is indeed for one man and one woman.

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.
 
LongJourney said:
God permitted polygamy in the OT, he never APPROVED of it. The New Covenant holds man to a higher standard. It is called evolution of man’s understanding of what God wants for us.
Click to expand...
The fact that David was told that God had GIVEN him Saul’s wives and concubines, and would have given him MORE if he asked, would seem to mitigate against that, LJ. David’s problem wasn’t that he had too many wives. It’s what he did to procure another one.
 
ParkerD said:
Chesterton and Mark A,
No, it does not appear from the four gospels that He was clear about “marriage is for one man and one woman.”
Click to expand...
Then why did the Church teach so from the beginning?
Why the change from early LDS teaching?

By the way, I don’t presume to know much about LDS. I must admit that most of my information about LDS came from the PBS documentary. Did you see it? Do you feel LDS was accurately represented?
 
mark_a said:
Then why did the Church teach so from the beginning?
Why the change from early LDS teaching?

By the way, I don’t presume to know much about LDS. I must admit that most of my information about LDS came from the PBS documentary. Did you see it? Do you feel LDS was accurately represented?
Click to expand...
Mark A,
I don’t seem to understand your first question above. If your second question has to do with why the change into polygamy for some of the leaders in the early LDS church, it really did have to do with an “Abrahamic test of faith” like I responded before. I would say it was probably an “Abrahamic test of faith” for some to follow Wilford Woodruff when the practice was stopped in the 1890’s, as well.

The whole practice of polygamy would be a definite “sifter of hearts” since some are going to say to themselves “that is not possible that God would command that” and yet that is exactly what Joseph Smith said happened. So the stumbling block is there right in the LDS church history for all to “see”, if they want to find something to stumble over.

I did see the documentary and thought it had a few elements somewhat blown out of proportion (the church court case, for example, which was dramatized way past reality), but by and large it presented a fairly balanced outsider view of the LDS church.
 
ParkerD said:
Chesterton and Mark A,
No, it does not appear from the four gospels that He was clear about “marriage is for one man and one woman.”

However, for me marriage is indeed for one man and one woman.

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.
Click to expand...
I think this is clear:

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’
 
CHESTERTONRULES said:
I think this is clear:

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’
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top