Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're not alone, Ilene. You're just one of the few who will actually admit it. I'd be happy to answer your questions. I'm going to do so in the same format as I started out with, though. I hope that's okay. In other words, I'll take the questions one at a time.
Why do Mormons believe in polygamy?
We believe that polygamy, or plural marriage, as we often call it, is an “eternal principle” that is practiced only when God authorizes it for His own purposes and that is strictly forbidden at all other times.
You are no doubt aware that a number of the Old Testament prophets had many wives. Abraham is perhaps the best known of these, although I could name several others. I have heard people say that God just “turned a blind eye” to Abraham’s plural marriages, that while He did not actually condemn the practice, He definitely did not approve of it. That’s certainly not what I have come to expect of God. Had He really disapproved of Abraham’s multiple marriages, I think we can be certain He would have spoken up. But He didn’t. He never once condemned Abraham. As a matter of fact, I cannot think of a single person in the Old Testament God chose to bless more than He did Abraham. He blessed him specifically because he was obedient.
According to the Church’s official site, “In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle.” The practice was officially announced in 1852 (although a few plural marriages took place before that date) and was officially discontinued about 40 years later. But why would God have commanded Joseph to institute a practice that initially appears to contradict that which we read in 1 Timothy 3 (which teaches that monogamy is God's will)?
In the Book of Mormon, we read (the italics are mine), “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Here the Lord is stressing (I don’t think that’s too strong a word) that monogamy should be the general rule and should be observed at all times except when He specifically commands His people for the purpose of “raising up seed” to Him. In other words, it appears that he commands the practice only at times when a righteous man’s progeny (children dedicated to honoring and serving the Lord) would not increase as quickly as the Lord wishes it to. We believe this to have been the case in the early days of Mormonism. When the Church was founded in 1830, there were just six members. It grew quickly, but the members were persecuted to a degree that the average American is oblivious to. (Did you know, for instance, that ours is the only religion in the United States that has ever had an official "extermination order" issued against it? In fact, it was legal to kill a Mormon anywhere in Missouri until as recently as 1976.) At any rate, hypothetically speaking, if this new church was, in fact, the re-establishment of ancient Christianity as it has always claimed to be, it would have been critical that its numbers increase at least as quickly as possible, so that within even a couple of generations, the likelihood that it disappear altogether would be significantly reduced.
Today anyone who is found to be in a polygamous relationship is excommunicated. There are no extenuating circumstances. The "Mormon polygamists" you may see in the news from time to time are not members of our Church, but of offshoot groups. They are not in any way affiliated with us nor are we with them.
Great post Katzpur! I've learned something today that I didn't know and that's always a good thing. I was under the impression that polygamy had been done away with completely but I wasn't sure so thanks for clearing that up.
Why do Mormons put Joseph Smith on a pedestal? After all, he was just a man and I have trouble with the fact that he wrote an "extra bible" if you will, in addition to the Holy Bible.
I'm sure it must seem to people outside our Church that we put him on a pedestal. I guess to some extent we do, but its one he shares with Moses, Abraham, Noah, Isaiah, Peter, and many of the other biblical prophets. It seems funny to me, as a Mormon to realize that relatively few people even know the single most fundamental belief of our Church. In a nutshell, this is it: Jesus Christ established a Church as part of His ministry. He gave Peter the "keys" (or authority) to direct His Church once He ascended into Heaven and was no longer physically with His followers. After the deaths of the Apostles, men changed the doctrines of the Church. Error crept in and the purity and simplicity of the doctrines was corrupted. This, of course, did not happen overnight, but it did happen. We believe that it was through Joseph Smith that Jesus Christ reestablished His Church in 1830, restoring the doctrines that had been lost or misinterpreted over time. We refer to Joseph Smith as the "Prophet of the Restoration." He was not, however, the last prophet to lead the Church. It is led today by the 16th person to hold that role, a man by the name of Thomas S. Monson. We love and admire all of the men who have served as prophets over the years, both in biblical times and today. We do not see any of them as being anything other than fallible men, but we do acknowledge their service to the Lord and to their fellow human beings.
The Book of Mormon is not really "an extra Bible," even though I can understand why people not of our faith would call it that. We definitely do accept the Holy Bible as the word of God. It ranks as foremost among our Church’s “Standard Works”, or four books which comprise the LDS canon. On the other hand, we do not believe that the Bible is the sole word of God. We believe that God has said much more than has been assembled in that single volume and that He is still not through speaking to us. The Bible, of course, contains both the Old Testament and the New Testament, the New Testament being a witness to the divine mission of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is yet another testament of Jesus Christ, another witness to His divinity and to His role as Savior of the world. It is the history, both religious and secular of several groups of people whom we believe we led by God to the American continent in ancient times. By far the largest portion of the book describes two civilizations, the Nephites and the Lamanites, who were both descendents of the House of Israel, and who lived on this continent between about 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. (Joseph Smith, I should mention at this time, was not the writer but the translator.)
When Jesus Christ spoke to his followers in the Holy Land, He is recorded in the Gospel of John as having said, “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” Note: He said they would hear His voice, not merely His message as it would be relayed by others. He also said that His own personal mission was only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. So who were the “other sheep” of whom He spoke, people who were evidently not living in the Holy Land but who were, at the same time, of the house of Israel? We believe they were the people whose story is told in the Book of Mormon. After Christ’s resurrection, he stayed among his Apostles and others for a time. But, according to the Book of Mormon, before He returned to heaven where He now awaits the time of His Second Coming, He visited the people of ancient America. He established His Church here, teaching exactly the same gospel of love, forgiveness and mercy He had taught in the Holy Land.
The Book of Mormon is an account of a 1000-year history of some of the people of ancient America, and includes a number of chapters which describe in some detail Jesus Christ’s ministry among those people. It does not contradict or supplant anything in the Bible. Rather it complements and clarifies many of the doctrines to which the Bible alludes but is not entirely clear. Its purpose is literally to prove the Bible to be true, and, as stated on the title page of the book is “to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ.”
Let me just quote a few brief verses from it, in which it addresses the question you have posed about "an extra Bible."
From 2 Nephi 29:7-11 "Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written."
Thanks again Katzpur....very informative. I have another question. What about the scripture in Revelation that says not to add to or take away from the Bible?
Revelation 22:18-19
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Katzpur thank you SO much for starting this thread. As a convert to the LDS faith, I cringe when I see what others post about our church.
And not to answer for Katzpur and since I am not as knowledgeable as Katz, I think that the book of Revelations was written before some other books in the bible so it is referring only to that book itself, Revelations, and not the whole bible itself, since the Bible as we know it now did not exist. It wasn't until many, many years later that someone put it together. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this somewhere.
So we basically have added nothing to the book.
I'm sorry you saw it that way. I thought I gave you a very comprehensive answer -- based on what has been revealed, and not resorting to speculation.
I don't know. You have the same inherent spark of divinity I have. If I can be a goddess on another planet, there is no reason why you couldn't be a god on another planet. The problem with your question -- with your wording, in particular -- in that there is nothing in the LDS canon that says we will be "a god on another planet." We are taught that we can become as our Father in Heaven is, but we are given no further specifics. I know you'd like to be able to pin me down on this, but I'm afraid you're going to have to just be disappointed. The whole matter of being "a god on another planet" is a kind of spin on the doctrine of Eternal Progression, as interpreted by non-Mormons. I have told you essentially all I can without simply making things up.
We have no official doctrine stating anything about God's beginnings. Two of our former prophets, Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow taught something to this effect that God was once a man, but their words were never canonized. As a Catholic, you know what it means when the Pope speaks ex cathedra. Well, to put it in a way that should make sense to you, neither of these men ever spoke "ex cathedra," so to speak. In other words, they were simply stating what they personally believed to be true, Joseph Smith in a funeral sermon and Lorenzo Snow in a poem he wrote (for his daughter or granddaughter, as I recall).
About all I can say about the possibility of this teaching being true is that, if it were true, it would have been during a period of time prior to what the Bible describes as "the beginning." In other words, it would have been before the clock started ticking, because we know that by "the beginning" (i.e. the beginning of the creation of our universe) God was God. He was who He is now and will be forever. Also, if we have been given the potential to become like Him at some distant time in the eternities to come, I suppose it is conceivable that the reverse may have also been true.
This is a difficult question because, as I said, everything that has ever been said on the subject is a matter of speculation and opinion. We have never had an official statement concerning God becoming God, and you could attend LDS Church worship services for 62 years, as I have done, without ever hearing a single sermon on the subject. It simply isn't something we are as concerned about as other people seem to be. If and when God tells us more, though, I'll make sure you're among the first to know.
So then the answer to the first part is: Yes, it's possible.
You see the obvious dilemma of the second question. I believe that God is God because He is omni-present or resides outside the shackles of time. He knows everything that has happened and everything yet to come. Hence, God is completely unlike ourselves. However, if you are a man and then become a God, you are NOT omni-present. You have a beginning and therefore a boundary of knowledge and therefore you do NOT know everything and therefore you cannot be classified as God. So if the God of Earth was once a man, then He is NOT God. And any man who becomes a God on another planet, is also NOT a god for the same reason.
Because man can become gods, then Mormonism clearly believes in polytheism. The fact that there are greater and lesser gods is not relevant to the polytheistic nature of Mormonism.
Do Mormons agree with the doctrinal view which says that Jesus Christ is the Archangel Michael?
No, we don't. I'm not 100% positive about this, but I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses believe this. People tend to get us mixed up from time to time.
Two Questions.
1) Are you aware that you are disagreeing with Brigham Young who said in Journal of Discourses 1:50 "Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.... When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." [Bolding mine]?
According to Brigham Young, Adam
1) was Michael the archangel and our God.
2) brought Eve (one of his wives) with him, as opposed to the Bible's revelation that Eve was built from one of Adam's ribs.
3) Jesus was begotten by the Father in contradiction to the Bible's revelation that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit. In fact, Brigham Young flat out said that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit.
Now maybe you will say that those beliefs were never cannonized. But the man who succeeded Joseph Smith believed and taught these things.
2) Are you aware that Joseph Smith was a con-man who a few years before he founded the Mormon chuch was tried and convicted regarding a gold-digging scheme?
Joseph Smith's Gold Digging Trial: A Nagging Legacy for Mormons, Mormon Historians and Apologists (http://www.suite101.com/content/joseph-smiths-gold-digging-trial-a30866 - broken link)
Joseph Smith Was A *******|*TPN :: No Illusions with Cameron Reilly (http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2009/11/08/joseph-smith-******/ - broken link)
Excerpt:
As a quick refresher, Mormons claim that Joseph Smith had the "First Vision" in 1820, and then in 1823 through 1827 he was visited yearly by the angel Moroni, translated the Book of Mormon in 1828 and again in 1829, and then published it in 1830. One MAJOR problem with Mormonism is Joseph Smith's "money-digging" background smack-dab in the middle of this period. In fact, in the first chapter of his "History" in the PofGP he explains (falsely) how the rumor of him as a money-digger got started around 1825-26. What's "money-digging", you ask. Joseph Smith And Money-digging; Oliver Cowdery And Divining Rods
Right in the middle of the period when Joseph Smith was supposedly visited by an angel and supposedly translating the Book of Mormon, he was tried and convicted of, found guilty of being a con-man.
This, as I stated, is a very common accusation leveled against Mormons. We believe that all human beings are the offspring of God and that He is the Father of our spirits. (See Acts 17:29 and Hebrews 12:9 if you doubt these doctrines to be biblical.) Unlike traditional Christians, we believe that all of us lived in God's presence prior to being born. (We were spirit beings at that time, without bodies of flesh and bones.) As the spirit sons and daughters of God, we were all brothers and sisters to each other. One of these spirits was named Lucifer. He was a proud and rebellious son who sought to exalt himself above his Father and who was cast out of Heaven for attempting to do so.
Unique among all the sons of God was the one we know as Jesus Christ. Unlike the rest of us, He was with His Father in the beginning. Unlike us, He was perfect in every conceivable way and had all of the divine attributes and qualities His Father had. The shared a unity of will and purpose to such an extent that together, they were known (along with the Holy Ghost) as God. Finally, even though we were all the spirit offspring of our Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ was also His Father's "Only Begotten" Son. Under His Father's direction, Jesus Christ created our universe. He was chosen prior to His birth in Bethlehem to be the lamb who would be slain for our sins. When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, he was disowned by his Father, and lost his right to ever again be known as a son of God (or a brother to God's Only Begotten, our Savior, Jesus Christ).
So that's our belief. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it, you must admit that it does not contradict anything the Bible has to say, since the Bible is 100% silent as to the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer. Furthermore, nothing Lucifer did is in any way a reflection on Jesus Christ. The idea that -- if they were indeed brothers -- Lucifer's rebellion makes Jesus Christ anything less than perfect, is utter nonsense and rationally inexplicable.
That would explain the 'Lost and Found'....To be lost one had to be somewhere at sometime...
Thanks again Katzpur....very informative. I have another question. What about the scripture in Revelation that says not to add to or take away from the Bible?
Revelation 22:18-19
18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Revelations is talking about the Book of Revelations itself...Not the Whole Bible...Because the Bible did not exist when that was written and the fact that the Bible is merely a collection of letters written back then and there are hundreds more, however the ones you see in the NT are the ones that were chosen by Bishop Eraenius after being assigned by the Pope to put together a standard to follow...
What view does Mormonism have towards the holy bible since there is also a Mormon bible.
Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God. What you call the Mormon bible is the Book of Mormon which is another testament of Jesus Christ. It in no way supercedes the Bible.
Click on the scriptures link to see the full canon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was under the impression that polygamy had been done away with completely but I wasn't sure so thanks for clearing that up.