Deleted

[Robin Hood]

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the atonement and plural marriage are connected how?

Think it through. You and your wife resurrect and with your celestial, eternal bodies start preparing your first creation. You two are clam happy cause all these children of yours are going to have a chance to grow up and be just like you. Your wife is thrilled to death cause you know how wives are about the children - want to do whatever is needed for their advantage.

Planets are all done, galaxy all built, you send the first couple of kids down - they fall - skin their knees a little but it looks like this fall thing is going to be permanent - unless you and the wife do something about it. Maybe a Savior?

How do two eternal beings create a Savior who can have all of the requirements to be able to fulfill the needs of an atonement?

It's simple.... we don't.
We don't need to. Christs' atonement is infinite.
For more information look up "infinity".

But even in your scenario it doesn't make sense. Where does plural marriage come in?

[MMbelieve]

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the atonement and plural marriage are connected how?

Think it through. You and your wife resurrect and with your celestial, eternal bodies start preparing your first creation. You two are clam happy cause all these children of yours are going to have a chance to grow up and be just like you. Your wife is thrilled to death cause you know how wives are about the children - want to do whatever is needed for their advantage.

Planets are all done, galaxy all built, you send the first couple of kids down - they fall - skin their knees a little but it looks like this fall thing is going to be permanent - unless you and the wife do something about it. Maybe a Savior?

How do two eternal beings create a Savior who can have all of the requirements to be able to fulfill the needs of an atonement?

It's simple.... we don't.
We don't need to. Christs' atonement is infinite.
For more information look up "infinity".

But even in your scenario it doesn't make sense. Where does plural marriage come in?

He simply believes that God came down and secretly married Mary so he and her could engage in "baby making". He believes that God, all holy - whose ways are far superior than we can even comprehend, did just as we inferior mortals do to procreate.

It is that belief only that many believe God is a polygamist. I personally know that God does not do as we do on earth. And that Mary's pregnancy was supposed to show God's power because she hadn't laid with a man. If she hadn't known a man, then she sure wasn't there engaged in a behavior that would cause her to know a man.

Also, I sure do hope that Mary is actually eternally sealed to Joseph. They had other children so if God is her eternal spouse then all the other children are God's not Josephs...actually they were not like unto Jesus. They were mortals and belong to Mary and Joseph.

Sometimes I wonder if people believe God pulled a weekend marriage/annulment thing just to make physical intimacy okay.

It really bothers me when people liken God to us. He is not us.

Anyways, that's what I understand some people to believe.

[Robin Hood]

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the atonement and plural marriage are connected how?

Think it through. You and your wife resurrect and with your celestial, eternal bodies start preparing your first creation. You two are clam happy cause all these children of yours are going to have a chance to grow up and be just like you. Your wife is thrilled to death cause you know how wives are about the children - want to do whatever is needed for their advantage.

Planets are all done, galaxy all built, you send the first couple of kids down - they fall - skin their knees a little but it looks like this fall thing is going to be permanent - unless you and the wife do something about it. Maybe a Savior?

How do two eternal beings create a Savior who can have all of the requirements to be able to fulfill the needs of an atonement?

It's simple.... we don't.
We don't need to. Christs' atonement is infinite.
For more information look up "infinity".

But even in your scenario it doesn't make sense. Where does plural marriage come in?

He simply believes that God came down and secretly married Mary so he and her could engage in "baby making". He believes that God, all holy - whose ways are far superior than we can even comprehend, did just as we inferior mortals do to procreate.

It is that belief only that many believe God is a polygamist. I personally know that God does not do as we do on earth. And that Mary's pregnancy was supposed to show God's power because she hadn't laid with a man. If she hadn't known a man, then she sure wasn't there engaged in a behavior that would cause her to know a man.

Also, I sure do hope that Mary is actually eternally sealed to Joseph. They had other children so if God is her eternal spouse then all the other children are God's not Josephs...actually they were not like unto Jesus. They were mortals and belong to Mary and Joseph.

Sometimes I wonder if people believe God pulled a weekend marriage/annulment thing just to make physical intimacy okay.

It really bothers me when people liken God to us. He is not us.

Anyways, that's what I understand some people to believe.

Thank you for the explanation.
One of my observations regarding many of my fellow LDS is that they try to make God small, local and "human". I mean human in the sense of the condition we currently find ourselves ie. fallen.
Whereas the scriptures describe a God who is mighty, powerful beyond our imagination, and not subject to our rules or limitations.
The very idea of God copulating with Mary is beyond repugnant.

[braingrunt]

But Abraham and Sarah shared the same father.
Technically she was his sister!

And for Joseph, legally they weren't married. Similar levels of truth.

[brlenox]

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the atonement and plural marriage are connected how?

Think it through. You and your wife resurrect and with your celestial, eternal bodies start preparing your first creation. You two are clam happy cause all these children of yours are going to have a chance to grow up and be just like you. Your wife is thrilled to death cause you know how wives are about the children - want to do whatever is needed for their advantage.

Planets are all done, galaxy all built, you send the first couple of kids down - they fall - skin their knees a little but it looks like this fall thing is going to be permanent - unless you and the wife do something about it. Maybe a Savior?

How do two eternal beings create a Savior who can have all of the requirements to be able to fulfill the needs of an atonement?

It's simple.... we don't.
We don't need to. Christs' atonement is infinite.
For more information look up "infinity".

But even in your scenario it doesn't make sense. Where does plural marriage come in?

He simply believes that God came down and secretly married Mary so he and her could engage in "baby making". He believes that God, all holy - whose ways are far superior than we can even comprehend, did just as we inferior mortals do to procreate.

It is that belief only that many believe God is a polygamist. I personally know that God does not do as we do on earth. And that Mary's pregnancy was supposed to show God's power because she hadn't laid with a man. If she hadn't known a man, then she sure wasn't there engaged in a behavior that would cause her to know a man.

Also, I sure do hope that Mary is actually eternally sealed to Joseph. They had other children so if God is her eternal spouse then all the other children are God's not Josephs...actually they were not like unto Jesus. They were mortals and belong to Mary and Joseph.

Sometimes I wonder if people believe God pulled a weekend marriage/annulment thing just to make physical intimacy okay.

It really bothers me when people liken God to us. He is not us.

Anyways, that's what I understand some people to believe.

Surely, I have no issue for not taking my word on anything. However, if I provided a Brigham Young quote, and an Orson Pratt quote, toss in a bit of Joseph Fielding Smith, a little smattering of Melvin J. Ballard, and a little B.H. Roberts to top it all off would that persuade you in the least. If you are comfortable with your opinion on the matter, I am perfectly fine with that but I can provide references from the above gentlemen if you are interested.

However, one thing I will give you as a bonus:

I have not, to my knowledge, in my ministry said anything more important. I intend to talk about the Lord, Jesus Christ, about what He really did—and why it matters now….

Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice….

This truth [The Atonement of Christ] is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them. (Packer, Boyd K., The Mediator, Ensign, May 1977, p. 56)

Having tried this bit of counsel I can assure you that it is absolutely correct. When you can tie a particular point of knowledge all they way full circle until it touches the atonement then and only then do you understand that doctrine. Plural marriage is absolutely no different. IF you can't do that and won't believe the apostles and prophets and a seventy...good enough.

[brlenox]

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the atonement and plural marriage are connected how?

Think it through. You and your wife resurrect and with your celestial, eternal bodies start preparing your first creation. You two are clam happy cause all these children of yours are going to have a chance to grow up and be just like you. Your wife is thrilled to death cause you know how wives are about the children - want to do whatever is needed for their advantage.

Planets are all done, galaxy all built, you send the first couple of kids down - they fall - skin their knees a little but it looks like this fall thing is going to be permanent - unless you and the wife do something about it. Maybe a Savior?

How do two eternal beings create a Savior who can have all of the requirements to be able to fulfill the needs of an atonement?

It's simple.... we don't.
We don't need to. Christs' atonement is infinite.
For more information look up "infinity".

But even in your scenario it doesn't make sense. Where does plural marriage come in?

Of what religious persuasion are you? If you don't mind me asking. Another question, was Christ the Savior for God the Father as well? If not do you suppose that the Savior of God the Father provided an infinite atonement as well?

[MMbelieve]

Think it through. You and your wife resurrect and with your celestial, eternal bodies start preparing your first creation. You two are clam happy cause all these children of yours are going to have a chance to grow up and be just like you. Your wife is thrilled to death cause you know how wives are about the children - want to do whatever is needed for their advantage.

Planets are all done, galaxy all built, you send the first couple of kids down - they fall - skin their knees a little but it looks like this fall thing is going to be permanent - unless you and the wife do something about it. Maybe a Savior?

How do two eternal beings create a Savior who can have all of the requirements to be able to fulfill the needs of an atonement?

It's simple.... we don't.
We don't need to. Christs' atonement is infinite.
For more information look up "infinity".

But even in your scenario it doesn't make sense. Where does plural marriage come in?

He simply believes that God came down and secretly married Mary so he and her could engage in "baby making". He believes that God, all holy - whose ways are far superior than we can even comprehend, did just as we inferior mortals do to procreate.

It is that belief only that many believe God is a polygamist. I personally know that God does not do as we do on earth. And that Mary's pregnancy was supposed to show God's power because she hadn't laid with a man. If she hadn't known a man, then she sure wasn't there engaged in a behavior that would cause her to know a man.

Also, I sure do hope that Mary is actually eternally sealed to Joseph. They had other children so if God is her eternal spouse then all the other children are God's not Josephs...actually they were not like unto Jesus. They were mortals and belong to Mary and Joseph.

Sometimes I wonder if people believe God pulled a weekend marriage/annulment thing just to make physical intimacy okay.

It really bothers me when people liken God to us. He is not us.

Anyways, that's what I understand some people to believe.

Surely, I have no issue for not taking my word on anything. However, if I provided a Brigham Young quote, and an Orson Pratt quote, toss in a bit of Joseph Fielding Smith, a little smattering of Melvin J. Ballard, and a little B.H. Roberts to top it all off would that persuade you in the least. If you are comfortable with your opinion on the matter, I am perfectly fine with that but I can provide references from the above gentlemen if you are interested.

However, one thing I will give you as a bonus:

I have not, to my knowledge, in my ministry said anything more important. I intend to talk about the Lord, Jesus Christ, about what He really did—and why it matters now….

Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice….

This truth [The Atonement of Christ] is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them. (Packer, Boyd K., The Mediator, Ensign, May 1977, p. 56)

Having tried this bit of counsel I can assure you that it is absolutely correct. When you can tie a particular point of knowledge all they way full circle until it touches the atonement then and only then do you understand that doctrine. Plural marriage is absolutely no different. IF you can't do that and won't believe the apostles and prophets and a seventy...good enough.

I actually don't care too much what those men said and don't know who half of them are. I'm the type who likes to think for themselves instead of being a mere follower. I operate by inspiration and discernment when it comes to questions about salvation and eternity and the mysteries of God.

You seemed to be more of a intellectual learned type who puts his faith or knowledge or confidence etc on the words of others. BY was A prophet but he is not the prophet I have ever lived under. His words were for those at his time not necessarily for our time now.

A bishop of a ward I move into is one of my judges, not the previous bishop as he never had stewardship over me. This is kind of what I'm trying to say. More bluntly, BY wasn't my prophet. I never lived under his stewardship. Does that make sense?

[Robin Hood]

But Abraham and Sarah shared the same father.
Technically she was his sister!

And for Joseph, legally they weren't married. Similar levels of truth.

That is true. But he denied what was called "spiritual wifeism" which was the name used and understood to mean an unofficial or not legal marriage.

When we read what Joseph said, it is absolutely clear he was denying any involvement in polygamy. His public deniel was in direct response to the public accusations made by the Law's and Higbee's etc. There was no wiggle room and no playing with words.
Joseph was absolutely unequivocal.
He was either lying or telling the truth.

If we claim that he was lying, and was indeed prepared to lie in such a public way, no doubt in front of people that knew he was lying; what confidence can we have in his other public claims? Angels, gold plates etc?

Joseph's integrity is on the line here. He was either a truthful man who wasn't afraid to declare the truth, or he was something else. If something else, he would not deserve our respect nor our devotion.

I used to follow the party line on this. But when I actually took the time to look at the evidence, especially the contemporary accounts, it became obvious things were not as they seemed. Joseph was no polygamist.

Interestingly, a wordprint analysis of D&C 132 discounts Joseph Smith as the author.

[Robin Hood]

Of what religious persuasion are you?

I'm LDS.

[Welcome2Reality]

Isn't it a bit sexist that the men can marry as much as they like and women can't? Oh I forgot, as long as you have breasts, you must have long hair and wear skirts. My question has already been answered.

[brlenox]

It's simple.... we don't.
We don't need to. Christs' atonement is infinite.
For more information look up "infinity".

But even in your scenario it doesn't make sense. Where does plural marriage come in?

He simply believes that God came down and secretly married Mary so he and her could engage in "baby making". He believes that God, all holy - whose ways are far superior than we can even comprehend, did just as we inferior mortals do to procreate.

It is that belief only that many believe God is a polygamist. I personally know that God does not do as we do on earth. And that Mary's pregnancy was supposed to show God's power because she hadn't laid with a man. If she hadn't known a man, then she sure wasn't there engaged in a behavior that would cause her to know a man.

Also, I sure do hope that Mary is actually eternally sealed to Joseph. They had other children so if God is her eternal spouse then all the other children are God's not Josephs...actually they were not like unto Jesus. They were mortals and belong to Mary and Joseph.

Sometimes I wonder if people believe God pulled a weekend marriage/annulment thing just to make physical intimacy okay.

It really bothers me when people liken God to us. He is not us.

Anyways, that's what I understand some people to believe.

Surely, I have no issue for not taking my word on anything. However, if I provided a Brigham Young quote, and an Orson Pratt quote, toss in a bit of Joseph Fielding Smith, a little smattering of Melvin J. Ballard, and a little B.H. Roberts to top it all off would that persuade you in the least. If you are comfortable with your opinion on the matter, I am perfectly fine with that but I can provide references from the above gentlemen if you are interested.

However, one thing I will give you as a bonus:

I have not, to my knowledge, in my ministry said anything more important. I intend to talk about the Lord, Jesus Christ, about what He really did—and why it matters now….

Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice….

This truth [The Atonement of Christ] is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them. (Packer, Boyd K., The Mediator, Ensign, May 1977, p. 56)

Having tried this bit of counsel I can assure you that it is absolutely correct. When you can tie a particular point of knowledge all they way full circle until it touches the atonement then and only then do you understand that doctrine. Plural marriage is absolutely no different. IF you can't do that and won't believe the apostles and prophets and a seventy...good enough.

I actually don't care too much what those men said and don't know who half of them are. I'm the type who likes to think for themselves instead of being a mere follower. I operate by inspiration and discernment when it comes to questions about salvation and eternity and the mysteries of God.

You seemed to be more of a intellectual learned type who puts his faith or knowledge or confidence etc on the words of others. BY was A prophet but he is not the prophet I have ever lived under. His words were for those at his time not necessarily for our time now.

A bishop of a ward I move into is one of my judges, not the previous bishop as he never had stewardship over me. This is kind of what I'm trying to say. More bluntly, BY wasn't my prophet. I never lived under his stewardship. Does that make sense?

I understand the words but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I presume scriptures are meaningful to you, perhaps not, but if so is not Peter simply a Brigham Young for his day? James? John? isn't Paul simply a Bruce R. McConkie for his time. Does one man every reveal or possess all the knowledge required to save mankind simply because he lives, or do we not glean from all. Is Joseph Smith to be discounted simply because he passed beyond the veil and is no longer "your" prophet. However, to each his own and if the methodology you have chosen will ultimately bring you back to where you wish to be, and it will, I'm sure be just where you wish to be, then the plan has worked for you just as was intended.

Best of Luck.

[brlenox]

Of what religious persuasion are you?

I'm LDS.

Great, then at least we enter the ballpark through the same gate. However, You failed to answer my second question. Was Christ the Savior of our Father in Heaven or did he have a different Savior? Did that Savior provide an Infinite atonement as well?

[braingrunt]

That is true. But he denied what was called "spiritual wifeism" which was the name used and understood to mean an unofficial or not legal marriage.

When we read what Joseph said, it is absolutely clear he was denying any involvement in polygamy. His public deniel was in direct response to the public accusations made by the Law's and Higbee's etc. There was no wiggle room and no playing with words.
Joseph was absolutely unequivocal.
He was either lying or telling the truth.

If we claim that he was lying, and was indeed prepared to lie in such a public way, no doubt in front of people that knew he was lying; what confidence can we have in his other public claims? Angels, gold plates etc?

Joseph's integrity is on the line here. He was either a truthful man who wasn't afraid to declare the truth, or he was something else. If something else, he would not deserve our respect nor our devotion.

I used to follow the party line on this. But when I actually took the time to look at the evidence, especially the contemporary accounts, it became obvious things were not as they seemed. Joseph was no polygamist.

Interestingly, a wordprint analysis of D&C 132 discounts Joseph Smith as the author.

As shadow pointed out, he wasn't doing Bennet's "Spiritual wifeism" either. But it doesn't really matter to me if Abraham had some connection to the truth while Joseph didn't. Abraham's intent was to deceive and he did deceive. I think Joseph might have some connection to the truth but if not I find the difference unimportant.
To dicker over the difference seems Pharisaical.

[Robin Hood]

Of what religious persuasion are you?

I'm LDS.

Great, then at least we enter the ballpark through the same gate. However, You failed to answer my second question. Was Christ the Savior of our Father in Heaven or did he have a different Savior? Did that Savior provide an Infinite atonement as well?

The Father is the Most High God. He is from everlasting to everlasting. He is the self existent one. He has no saviour.

[brlenox]

Of what religious persuasion are you?

I'm LDS.

Great, then at least we enter the ballpark through the same gate. However, You failed to answer my second question. Was Christ the Savior of our Father in Heaven or did he have a different Savior? Did that Savior provide an Infinite atonement as well?

The Father is the Most High God. He is from everlasting to everlasting. He is the self existent one. He has no saviour.

Well, good enough. Thanks for your input.

[Col. Flagg]

Polygamy would never have even been an issue if it involved multiple men being sealed to one woman. =))

[Older/wiser?]

Having looked at the previous posts, I have a 2 part comment. What was the Saviors greatest accomplishment? If you state the atonement, (which I would ). What are your thoughts and what do you interpret John 5:19 to reference. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. V20 For the Father Loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. I recall that Bruce McConkie said this was the most important scripture. Seems pretty clear to me, any thoughts.

[shadow]

Hunter was only sealed to his first wife, not his second. You shouldn't keep claiming otherwise.
I can't find anything on Benson being sealed in marriage to his cousin. Where did you get that info?

[Welcome2Reality]

Ha! Again, liars and hypocrites. You said in my post that polygamy isn't allowed yet you're discussing it here. This is why I left your church, you give me less hope.

[brlenox]

Ha! Again, liars and hypocrites. You said in my post that polygamy isn't allowed yet you're discussing it here. This is why I left your church, you give me less hope.

Really? I checked my mom's room and you weren't there. Now whose telling the tall tales...?

[brlenox]

Hunter was only sealed to his first wife, not his second. You shouldn't keep claiming otherwise.
I can't find anything on Benson being sealed in marriage to his cousin. Where did you get that info?

I found a couple of things that may be adequate references:

This source is footnote number six from an article in DIALOGUE:A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, VOL.41,NO.4, Bergera:Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture page 83 at this link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... V41N04.pdf

Ezra Taft Benson, Diary, April 25, 1950. For context and full citation, see Gary James Bergera, “Weak-Kneed Republicans and Socialist Democrats”: Ezra Taft Benson as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 1953-61, Part 2, Dialogue : A Journal of Mormon Thought, (Winter 2008, vol 41). April 25, 1950 Was sealed in marriage to his recently deceased cousin, Eva Amanda Benson (July 6, 1882–August 10, 1946). Eva was the never-married daughter of Benson’s uncle Frank Andrus Benson. Flora had first suggested acting as proxy for Eva, then did so during the vicarious ordinance performed by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith in the Salt Lake Temple. “I have never witnessed a more unselfish act on the part of any person,” Benson recorded, “and I love Flora all the more because of it. The Lord will richly bless her for this act of unselfish love for Eva and me and the Kingdom. Flora is one of the choicest daughters of our Heavenly Father.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6952 ... unter.html

President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery.

Inis Hunter "will now be laid to rest on the other side," he said. "They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity," he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990.

[MMbelieve]

Isn't it a bit sexist that the men can marry as much as they like and women can't? Oh I forgot, as long as you have breasts, you must have long hair and wear skirts. My question has already been answered.

The sexist angle has zero persuasion or effect on those who believe in polygamy. Also, emotional pleas and turning things around get smashed down too.

It's a take it or be a bad mormon kind of thing.

[MMbelieve]

Hunter was only sealed to his first wife, not his second. You shouldn't keep claiming otherwise.
I can't find anything on Benson being sealed in marriage to his cousin. Where did you get that info?

This source is footnote number six from an article in DIALOGUE:A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, VOL.41,NO.4, Bergera:Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture page 83 at this link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... V41N04.pdf

Ezra Taft Benson, Diary, April 25, 1950. For context and full citation, see Gary James Bergera, “Weak-Kneed Republicans and Socialist Democrats”: Ezra Taft Benson as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 1953-61, Part 2, Dialogue : A Journal of Mormon Thought, (Winter 2008, vol 41). April 25, 1950 Was sealed in marriage to his recently deceased cousin, Eva Amanda Benson (July 6, 1882–August 10, 1946). Eva was the never-married daughter of Benson’s uncle Frank Andrus Benson. Flora had first suggested acting as proxy for Eva, then did so during the vicarious ordinance performed by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith in the Salt Lake Temple. “I have never witnessed a more unselfish act on the part of any person,” Benson recorded, “and I love Flora all the more because of it. The Lord will richly bless her for this act of unselfish love for Eva and me and the Kingdom. Flora is one of the choicest daughters of our Heavenly Father.”

We know that we need a sealing to enter through the gates, right? If i wasn't married, my father would be responsible for me. So him getting sealed to his cousin could have been under this kind of idea, because she didn't marry and didn't have a supposed entrance through the gates?

Also, it doesn't say 1st 2nd or whatever cousin but if she was his first, he could have possibly found a non-family member to seal her to?

But, I venture to believe that the first situation fits, that he knew she needed a sealing and felt honored to provide that for her. I would bet a million dollars that if and when she decides she wants to have this or that man as her eternal companion (having never had the chance to marry in this life) then she absolutely will. I believe Benson will fully rejoice in it as well. I don't believe that her fate was decided that day to be eternally sealed as a second wife to her very cousin.

Women are not property to be told who and where and what. Just because he sealed her to him doesn't mean he took her choice or agency or opportunity. Which means he may very well have just his one wife.

All these sealings are not set in stone, especially the ones that occure with deceased peoples. No more than a baptism or endowment for an ancestor is set in stone as a done deal. We just don't know!

I think sometimes we get very narrow viewed and don't think outside the box when it comes to the early church.

If polygamy causes so much heartache and pains to so many people, how is that good? And to say it's a true act of love/unselfishness/ etc to accept polygamy is really placing a grand burden on mostly only one gender.

It's not right to tell women they are weak or selfish or somehow bad and wrong if they don't want it. Men wouldn't want it, it would hurt them too much and demasculinize them or cheapen them. We wouldn't want to do that to our men! Why do we say it's loving and Christ like to do that to our women?

Even God knows how much it breaks women's hearts. We would be a much better people if we were more on one a chord with this subject. If men and women both advocated for monogamy whole heartedly! If men stood up more and said no, we don't want to hurt our wives - we would be a great people. But all to often men forget that their first duty of the priesthood is to love their wife. You can't be talking so much about and defending polygamy and keep that 1st priority, in my opinion. Unless you are married to a rare breed of woman who actually wants to share you or pass you off to someone else, then by all means chat it up with HER.

[brlenox]

I think sometimes we get very narrow viewed and don't think outside the box...

Wiser words were never spoken.

[shadow]

Hunter was only sealed to his first wife, not his second. You shouldn't keep claiming otherwise.
I can't find anything on Benson being sealed in marriage to his cousin. Where did you get that info?

I've been corrected. President Hunter and his second wife were also sealed for eternity.