Deleted

[passionflower]

When JS was was translating the Bible, he had many of the same feelings posted here. He wondered how God could justify such marraige relationships as he read about in the OT. Didn't seem right, of course. But he went to the Lord in prayer and got an answer. I suggest anyone troubled by the polygamy in church history do like he did instead of beat the the subject to death in debate and argument.

If you don't believe JS did any such thing, I would contend it would be amazing if he didn't. There he is translating the Bible and he sees all this OT polygamy and you think he wouldn't question it at all? So many of you are doing it, why not him?

[Robin Hood]

When JS was was translating the Bible, he had many of the same feelings posted here. He wondered how God could justify such marraige relationships as he read about in the OT. Didn't seem right, of course. But he went to the Lord in prayer and got an answer. I suggest anyone troubled by the polygamy in church history do like he did instead of beat the the subject to death in debate and argument.

If you don't believe JS did any such thing, I would contend it would be amazing if he didn't. There he is translating the Bible and he sees all this OT polygamy and you think he wouldn't question it at all? So many of you are doing it, why not him?

The problem with that position is that he had already translated the Book of Mormon prior to that. In the book of Jacob it clearly states polygamy is an abomination. Not only that, but it specifically states that what David and Solomon did was sinful. Yet D&C 132 has Joseph apparently asking God how he justified David and Solomon having many wives.
Why ask something he already had an unequivocal answer to?

It doesn't make sense. And as Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true.

[passionflower]

When JS was was translating the Bible, he had many of the same feelings posted here. He wondered how God could justify such marraige relationships as he read about in the OT. Didn't seem right, of course. But he went to the Lord in prayer and got an answer. I suggest anyone troubled by the polygamy in church history do like he did instead of beat the the subject to death in debate and argument.

If you don't believe JS did any such thing, I would contend it would be amazing if he didn't. There he is translating the Bible and he sees all this OT polygamy and you think he wouldn't question it at all? So many of you are doing it, why not him?

The problem with that position is that he had already translated the Book of Mormon prior to that. In the book of Jacob it clearly states polygamy is an abomination. Not only that, but it specifically states that what David and Solomon did was sinful. Yet D&C 132 has Joseph apparently asking God how he justified David and Solomon having many wives.
Why ask something he already had an unequivocal answer to?

It doesn't make sense. And as Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true.

If something doesn't make any sense, then you don't have all the information. Everything is simple and makes perfect sense when all the pieces are in place. Arguing and debating does not supply any new information. It just keeps hashing out the old.

Don't think I am not appreciateing your stance up there. You are asking a good question. But the question needs an answer, not an argument. Answers come by faith in an answer actually existing. We need to "light up" the subject instead of "fight up" the subject.

[shadow]

When JS was was translating the Bible, he had many of the same feelings posted here. He wondered how God could justify such marraige relationships as he read about in the OT. Didn't seem right, of course. But he went to the Lord in prayer and got an answer. I suggest anyone troubled by the polygamy in church history do like he did instead of beat the the subject to death in debate and argument.

If you don't believe JS did any such thing, I would contend it would be amazing if he didn't. There he is translating the Bible and he sees all this OT polygamy and you think he wouldn't question it at all? So many of you are doing it, why not him?

The problem with that position is that he had already translated the Book of Mormon prior to that. In the book of Jacob it clearly states polygamy is an abomination. Not only that, but it specifically states that what David and Solomon did was sinful. Yet D&C 132 has Joseph apparently asking God how he justified David and Solomon having many wives.
Why ask something he already had an unequivocal answer to?

It doesn't make sense. And as Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true.

There's no problem if context is understood. It goes back to the OP question if polygamy is of God or Satan. My reply earlier is that it can be both. Solomon and David did it wrong, eventually. But notice how there was no mention in the BOM of other important prophets like Moses, Jacob, or Abraham? They were polygamists. They didn't do it incorrectly out of the greed of their hearts and minds UNLIKE David and Solomon. There is a difference.
"and his (Solomon) wives turned away his heart". Obviously not all 1000 wives and concubines (birthdays and anniversaries would be a pain #-o. Too bad JW's weren't around :)) ) turned his heart, just the foreign ones.
David lusted after Bathsheba and had her husband killed so he could marry her. He was fine up to that point. That was the moment he lost what he had.
Reading the context of Jacob in the BOM of why it was an abomination should make it clear.

[Kitkat]

I know by personal revelation that it was of God through Joseph Smith, and anciently as He had occasion to command. I likewise know it was by revelation that the practice ceased and yet has remained as a doctrine and practiced today in ways that the OP has observed.

The Lord intends for families to be exalted together. It was for this wise purpose that it was done. Those privileged to live in on this earth and those who are byproducts of such unions have much to be grateful for. The veil is very thin for those with ancestors who lived it. This I know VERY well.

I know by personal revelation Joseph was completely innocent of polygamy, and the church has lifted its heal against the Lords' anointed and Jacob 2 clearly as plain as a child is against it, God never commanded it, D&C 132 is Brigham's doing entirely.

[Kitkat]

Neither.

Polygamy has a Godly purpose.

Jacob 2:30

30 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.

It seems that he recognizes it as a potentially legitimate strategy for fulfilling His purpose

Moses 1:39

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

That does not mean that every instance of it's use comes from heaven.

An invite to ask God His perspective on Jacob 2, it actually says the exact opposite you speak of, and we were shocked to learn the same once you read it in context. I'd post a link but google search is no longer working on this forum.

[MMbelieve]

When JS was was translating the Bible, he had many of the same feelings posted here. He wondered how God could justify such marraige relationships as he read about in the OT. Didn't seem right, of course. But he went to the Lord in prayer and got an answer. I suggest anyone troubled by the polygamy in church history do like he did instead of beat the the subject to death in debate and argument.

If you don't believe JS did any such thing, I would contend it would be amazing if he didn't. There he is translating the Bible and he sees all this OT polygamy and you think he wouldn't question it at all? So many of you are doing it, why not him?

The problem with that position is that he had already translated the Book of Mormon prior to that. In the book of Jacob it clearly states polygamy is an abomination. Not only that, but it specifically states that what David and Solomon did was sinful. Yet D&C 132 has Joseph apparently asking God how he justified David and Solomon having many wives.
Why ask something he already had an unequivocal answer to?

It doesn't make sense. And as Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true.

If something doesn't make any sense, then you don't have all the information. Everything is simple and makes perfect sense when all the pieces are in place. Arguing and debating does not supply any new information. It just keeps hashing out the old.

Don't think I am not appreciateing your stance up there. You are asking a good question. But the question needs an answer, not an argument. Answers come by faith in an answer actually existing. We need to "light up" the subject instead of "fight up" the subject.

We don't have all the answers/ information and so things don't really make perfect sense. The apostles have openly admitted that we just don't know aspects of the early church history. If the apostles don't know then I suspect that we likely won't know either. It's probably a non issue in the long run.

[Mark]

So you are saying that Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball and all those Brethren who succeeded Joseph in the leadership of the church were just innocently deceived into thinking they were doing their duty? Go back and read their words. They solemnly testify that it was Joseph who taught them the principle of celestial marriage and they chose with great anguish to follow that principle as outlined by the Prophet after confirmation from God. These men had great spiritual manifestations given them. How in the world can you say that they were just innocently mistaken in adopting this principle? How do you KNOW this?

Like I have already said, "sealing" and "marriage" became conflated. They're not the same thing. Sealing is dynastical whereas marriage can and does exist without a sealing and includes other aspects. Even Helen Kimball, the 14 year old that Joseph supposedly "married", said that she understood it to be a sealing for dynastical purposes, with no question of it being a marriage in the common understanding of the word.

I fully understand the differences between dynastical sealings and celestial marriage. However you are ignoring historical information. Read the journals of those women Joseph were "sealed" to. Read Eliza R Snows journal entries. She referred to Joseph as her Husband many times. She fully considered herself as one of his wives. Joseph was fighting the enemies of the church like Bennett and Higbee who were accusing him of adultery and fornication. Joseph adamantly denied involvement in adulterous relationships or spiritual wivery for the purposes of lustful fulfillment. And he was innocent of all those charges. However the principle of Celestial marriage was taught by him to many of his closest confidants in the quorum of the 12 and those he most trusted. Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball 2 of his closest. To deny this would be to label these anointed servants of the Lord as liars and adulterers. They were neither. Those who do not understand the Lords purposes in bringing about Celestial Marriage at that time will never understand or comprehend the reasons behind why this was implemented by the Lord and taught by Joseph to his closest friends and supporters. Casting Pearls before swine would be an appropriate phraseology to invoke.

1. How many of those journals were contemporary with the events?
I'll make this easy for you......none! They were all written years, and in some cases decades after the event.
My goodness, even the affidavits presented in court during the Temple Lot case were found to be completely unreliable.

2. How much reliable contemporary evidence of Joseph's involvement in polygamy exists? That would be none again.

3. Joseph publicly proclaimed just 6 weeks before his death that he wasn't a polygamist, had never been a polygamist, and only had one wife.
Was he lying or telling the truth?

Are you forgetting the Saints had an extermination order issued against them? Goodness sakes they were driven and persecuted and driven some more. Why would Joseph publicly proclaim Celestial marriage so as to further bring down the hordes of hell in the form of more mobocracy on the Saints? You continue to ignore the writings of Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball and Parley Pratt and John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff and George Cannon and Lorenzo Snow and Eliza Snow and On and on who all stated and testified in no uncertain terms that Celestial Marriage had come to them directly from Joseph as a result of him receiving revelation from the most high God. Are you willing to call all these faithful Brethren and Sisters who remained true to the faith and served the Lord to the end just a bunch of deceived sheep who just "misunderstood" what Celestial marriage really meant? Go read their writings and tell me that they were just "ignorant" of this early doctrine. That is just plain ridiculous. These men and women were Prophets and Seers. They did not act out of some misunderstanding.

[Robin Hood]

Like I have already said, "sealing" and "marriage" became conflated. They're not the same thing. Sealing is dynastical whereas marriage can and does exist without a sealing and includes other aspects. Even Helen Kimball, the 14 year old that Joseph supposedly "married", said that she understood it to be a sealing for dynastical purposes, with no question of it being a marriage in the common understanding of the word.

I fully understand the differences between dynastical sealings and celestial marriage. However you are ignoring historical information. Read the journals of those women Joseph were "sealed" to. Read Eliza R Snows journal entries. She referred to Joseph as her Husband many times. She fully considered herself as one of his wives. Joseph was fighting the enemies of the church like Bennett and Higbee who were accusing him of adultery and fornication. Joseph adamantly denied involvement in adulterous relationships or spiritual wivery for the purposes of lustful fulfillment. And he was innocent of all those charges. However the principle of Celestial marriage was taught by him to many of his closest confidants in the quorum of the 12 and those he most trusted. Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball 2 of his closest. To deny this would be to label these anointed servants of the Lord as liars and adulterers. They were neither. Those who do not understand the Lords purposes in bringing about Celestial Marriage at that time will never understand or comprehend the reasons behind why this was implemented by the Lord and taught by Joseph to his closest friends and supporters. Casting Pearls before swine would be an appropriate phraseology to invoke.

1. How many of those journals were contemporary with the events?
I'll make this easy for you......none! They were all written years, and in some cases decades after the event.
My goodness, even the affidavits presented in court during the Temple Lot case were found to be completely unreliable.

2. How much reliable contemporary evidence of Joseph's involvement in polygamy exists? That would be none again.

3. Joseph publicly proclaimed just 6 weeks before his death that he wasn't a polygamist, had never been a polygamist, and only had one wife.
Was he lying or telling the truth?

Are you forgetting the Saints had an extermination order issued against them? Goodness sakes they were driven and persecuted and driven some more. Why would Joseph publicly proclaim Celestial marriage so as to further bring down the hordes of hell in the form of more mobocracy on the Saints? You continue to ignore the writings of Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball and Parley Pratt and John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff and George Cannon and Lorenzo Snow and Eliza Snow and On and on who all stated and testified in no uncertain terms that Celestial Marriage had come to them directly from Joseph as a result of him receiving revelation from the most high God. Are you willing to call all these faithful Brethren and Sisters who remained true to the faith and served the Lord to the end just a bunch of deceived sheep who just "misunderstood" what Celestial marriage really meant? Go read their writings and tell me that they were just "ignorant" of this early doctrine. That is just plain ridiculous. These men and women were Prophets and Seers. They did not act out of some misunderstanding.

So you're saying he publicly proclaimed a lie?
Even though he didn't have to publicly proclaim anything?
You obviously have a lower opinion of Joseph Smith than I do.

I don't ignore the writings of anyone. But I do place far more weight on contemporary records than on those written later..... often many years later.
Show me a contemporary record from the Nauvoo period where Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Parley Pratt, John Taylor or any of the people you mention even hint at polygamy in the church or that Joseph approved or practiced it. You won't be able to because such records do not exist. They just don't.
The records produced later in Utah need to be understood in the context of the circumstances in which they were written.

This is fairly elementary stuff. I think you need to study this subject a little deeper.

[MMbelieve]

Like I have already said, "sealing" and "marriage" became conflated. They're not the same thing. Sealing is dynastical whereas marriage can and does exist without a sealing and includes other aspects. Even Helen Kimball, the 14 year old that Joseph supposedly "married", said that she understood it to be a sealing for dynastical purposes, with no question of it being a marriage in the common understanding of the word.

I fully understand the differences between dynastical sealings and celestial marriage. However you are ignoring historical information. Read the journals of those women Joseph were "sealed" to. Read Eliza R Snows journal entries. She referred to Joseph as her Husband many times. She fully considered herself as one of his wives. Joseph was fighting the enemies of the church like Bennett and Higbee who were accusing him of adultery and fornication. Joseph adamantly denied involvement in adulterous relationships or spiritual wivery for the purposes of lustful fulfillment. And he was innocent of all those charges. However the principle of Celestial marriage was taught by him to many of his closest confidants in the quorum of the 12 and those he most trusted. Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball 2 of his closest. To deny this would be to label these anointed servants of the Lord as liars and adulterers. They were neither. Those who do not understand the Lords purposes in bringing about Celestial Marriage at that time will never understand or comprehend the reasons behind why this was implemented by the Lord and taught by Joseph to his closest friends and supporters. Casting Pearls before swine would be an appropriate phraseology to invoke.

1. How many of those journals were contemporary with the events?
I'll make this easy for you......none! They were all written years, and in some cases decades after the event.
My goodness, even the affidavits presented in court during the Temple Lot case were found to be completely unreliable.

2. How much reliable contemporary evidence of Joseph's involvement in polygamy exists? That would be none again.

3. Joseph publicly proclaimed just 6 weeks before his death that he wasn't a polygamist, had never been a polygamist, and only had one wife.
Was he lying or telling the truth?

Are you forgetting the Saints had an extermination order issued against them? Goodness sakes they were driven and persecuted and driven some more. Why would Joseph publicly proclaim Celestial marriage so as to further bring down the hordes of hell in the form of more mobocracy on the Saints? You continue to ignore the writings of Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball and Parley Pratt and John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff and George Cannon and Lorenzo Snow and Eliza Snow and On and on who all stated and testified in no uncertain terms that Celestial Marriage had come to them directly from Joseph as a result of him receiving revelation from the most high God. Are you willing to call all these faithful Brethren and Sisters who remained true to the faith and served the Lord to the end just a bunch of deceived sheep who just "misunderstood" what Celestial marriage really meant? Go read their writings and tell me that they were just "ignorant" of this early doctrine. That is just plain ridiculous. These men and women were Prophets and Seers. They did not act out of some misunderstanding.

I'm not sure anyone is calling the early saints ignorant sheep. If there was any misunderstanding it wouldn't be in the every day saint, it would have been in the leadership, the priesthood. Now, I'm not calling anyone wrong or ignorant just pointing a fact out. If someday polygamy is known to have been practiced or operated in ANY way contrary to what God had in mind, the everyday follower of the faith would not carry that burden, no need to repent of anything...IMO. just saying no one is calling the followers out here.

We can honor our ancestors of the early church without condoning the practice of polygamy as well. Because we understand they were doing what they believed to be correct. And if you hear the words spoken to them about polygamy, I'm sure they all felt a very heavy burden to participate in it or be damned.

Also, your last statement of these men and women were prophets and seers...who exactly were you referencing here? The average saint? Cause we didn't have any women prophets that I'm aware of.

[brlenox]

I'll ask again...can you have an atonement without plural marriage?

[MMbelieve]

I'll ask this here unless someone wants to make another thread. Does anyone think polygamy will ever be reinstated like during the millennium or are there no new polygamy sealings ever and we are done with it forever?

No one knows the future, impossible question to answer. Only will breed contention.

[MMbelieve]

I'll ask again...can you have an atonement without plural marriage?

Wrong thread?

[shadow]

I'll ask again...can you have an atonement without plural marriage?

As far as this creation- nope.

[Robin Hood]

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

[braingrunt]

So you're saying he publicly proclaimed a lie?
Even though he didn't have to publicly proclaim anything?
You obviously have a lower opinion of Joseph Smith than I do.

I don't respect him a great deal more than Abraham, who on multiple occasions proclaimed "She is my sister", in order to spare himself some serious danger.
And hey, both had a similar technical "out".

But I do respect both to have a pretty good handles on their dispensations.

[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?

[brlenox]

So you're saying he publicly proclaimed a lie?
Even though he didn't have to publicly proclaim anything?
You obviously have a lower opinion of Joseph Smith than I do.

I don't respect him a great deal more than Abraham, who on multiple occasions proclaimed "She is my sister", in order to spare himself some serious danger.
And hey, both had a similar technical "out".

But I do respect both to have a pretty good handles on their dispensations.

Please, study some of this material out. Maybe she was his sister? Have you ever tried to really understand these inferences or are you just repeating over and over what you heard in a primary class somewhere? I do think this is important. If you are going to place yourself in the position of judge - at least you should know what the evidence is.

[braingrunt]

Please, study some of this material out. Maybe she was his sister? Have you ever tried to really understand these inferences or are you just repeating over and over what you heard in a primary class somewhere? I do think this is important. If you are going to place yourself in the position of judge - at least you should know what the evidence is.

I think you misunderstood me. If Joseph lied, well so did Abraham.
But I give credit to each to not be stupid or incompetent, which is what Robin Hood's position does to Joseph.

[Robin Hood]

So you're saying he publicly proclaimed a lie?
Even though he didn't have to publicly proclaim anything?
You obviously have a lower opinion of Joseph Smith than I do.

I don't respect him a great deal more than Abraham, who on multiple occasions proclaimed "She is my sister", in order to spare himself some serious danger.
And hey, both had a similar technical "out".

But I do respect both to have a pretty good handles on their dispensations.

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

[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.