Polygamy - how do I feel good about this???

[brlenox]

Doesn't an objective mind accept anything true or logical, even if it doesn't support their belief?

Although You are very reasonable, I haven't seen you do that. You very reasonably present your own beliefs with many quotes and scriptures, but that's all i've seen.

You seem very biased in your responses, yet a synonym of objective is unbiased!

Perhaps you can show me what you believe objective means, or show me situations where you have accepted something that doesn't necessarily support your beliefs, or anything you are biased towards

I believe for the most part, I am unbiased. I accept inconvient truths, and inconvenient history.
There are certain things I do not want to believe, but cannot deny the truth of it and so I do not attempt to justify it.

For myself I think that objectivity and subjectivity are not hindrances to the spirit. He is able to speak both languages well. So, if I was in a conversation with a very subjective person, the spirit has to carry the burden of communication – I’m not that gifted.

I agree that an humble objective person is easily entreated with truth whether it fits his current paradigm or not. However, what I think you might be observing is not so much my objectivity but what most would call a state of closemindedness.

About 12 years ago I was taking some college classes and they were rehashing the logical fallacies, and ethical thinking and critical thinking and such. These were classes of much different material than was taught years ago, much more refined. Now I don’t think you want to hear the remarkable things I learned there as I heard some of the most profound philosophies of men that sounded so reasonable and knew of an instant they were wonderful indoctrinations of Satan to convince people to think a certain way.

In the ethical thinking class, one indoctrination was concerning being open-minded. Long story short, I realized then that once the spirit has taught me something that I am perfectly justified in being closeminded to anything that opposes that truth. I practice that without apology. I can try to reason, I can listen, I can share but I do not move from certain positions which have been made clear to me. As well, I am very cautious to very seldom take a position that is not informed by much study and research. Too many get in the habit of their uninformed or inadequately informed opinions becoming their doctrine.

As an example a subject that has come up here on LDSFF was two years ago a point of open mindedness for me. It was concerning energy healing. I engaged some of the pro folks on this forum, I shared ideas and thoughts, I researched the principles of healing, I read some Doug Mendenhall material and by the time I was done I felt very clearly that energy healing is not of God. So where a couple of years ago I was willing to entertain thoughts on the subject and consider them and pray and ponder over them as an open minded endeavor of seeking the truth, I am now unabashedly completely closeminded on the subject. It is false and an inappropriate activity for faithful LDS to engage in. In the process of my research I collected a lot of material, not sure where it is at the moment, but as in most things I can speak intelligently as to why I ultimately become closeminded.

For me this comes down to a very simple principle. If I have studied it out, if I have prayed about it and sought God’s wisdom on a subject and he provides insight and confirmation then where I am going to go to find better information? Or is my faith lacking so much that I have to question him over and over about things that have been addressed every single time it comes up? I can’t do that. I am very confident in my talents as a student of the scriptures. That may come off to some as a bit off – putting but when I study and seek the Lord has promised I’ll get answers, I study very hard and I count on the Lord fulfilling his end of the bargain. He does and I accept his answers and I confidently reference them when called upon to do so.

Another example was Amonhi’s tithing post. I really was impacted by that as he managed to reach a level of presentation that matches my own efforts and it was on a subject that I was not adequately prepared to evaluate. I have to be honest - it catches me off guard when someone is able to get beyond my spiritual knowledge base as it doesn't happen very often except with the brethren. However, the nature of Amonhi's post was superbly crafted and it appealed to a certain weakness that I was not as aware of as I should have been. It took me a few days to respond because I was searching and seeking and reading and studying and seeking the Lord’s insight. When it came and I realized the depth of the deception involved in Amonhi’s efforts I felt an imperative to respond. Before I was open minded, but when the answers came and it was in a twinkling of an eye, if you will, I became closeminded – and extremely grateful to the Lord for comforting my misunderstandings and illustrating my own weaknesses.

So I think that explains my perspective on such things. If not let me know.

[Fiannan]

Maybe Father needs you to practice polygamy, and sacrifice for others in the same way he needed a Savior to suffer so much pain and anguish, and ultimately a horrible death for the sake of all his children. As women we lay down our lives and our bodies down for others. We also might have an opportunity to give the chance of Celestial glory to other women who do not have husbands. This is not the sole purpose, but one very important one. Can't you imagine Father asking you to share your husband so that another woman could have the same privileges you have?

I was watching a documentary about some guy who sat up a sperm bank for only genius donors. They interviewed many of the couples who had been able to get pregnant using the services of the clinic. In one instance a man who had already had children before a divorce, if I recall right, had gotten fixed before getting married to his current wife. In time she wanted a child and so he proposed she get insemination because he realized how much she wanted the child and he loved her enough to encourage her to go for it.

That is sacrificing ones pride for the love of another. As a man I can seriously say additional sex is not an important factor in seeing the advantages of polygamy. Being able to have additional children would be the incentive, and allowing women who would otherwise not have that opportunity, at least having a father the children would know, would be the major motivator. As for women allowing or even encouraging a man to take additional wives for that purpose that is a great act of love to others, and a sign of being willing to throw off the incorrect traditions of the society for which they live.

[Sarah]

Maybe Father needs you to practice polygamy, and sacrifice for others in the same way he needed a Savior to suffer so much pain and anguish, and ultimately a horrible death for the sake of all his children. As women we lay down our lives and our bodies down for others. We also might have an opportunity to give the chance of Celestial glory to other women who do not have husbands. This is not the sole purpose, but one very important one. Can't you imagine Father asking you to share your husband so that another woman could have the same privileges you have?

I was watching a documentary about some guy who sat up a sperm bank for only genius donors. They interviewed many of the couples who had been able to get pregnant using the services of the clinic. In one instance a man who had already had children before a divorce, if I recall right, had gotten fixed before getting married to his current wife. In time she wanted a child and so he proposed she get insemination because he realized how much she wanted the child and he loved her enough to encourage her to go for it.

That is sacrificing ones pride for the love of another. As a man I can seriously say additional sex is not an important factor in seeing the advantages of polygamy. Being able to have additional children would be the incentive, and allowing women who would otherwise not have that opportunity, at least having a father the children would know, would be the major motivator. As for women allowing or even encouraging a man to take additional wives for that purpose that is a great act of love to others, and a sign of being willing to throw off the incorrect traditions of the society for which they live.

I agree that ultimately we must love God and others more than ourselves, even if it means giving up what we feel we need. I actually think my husband, while perhaps not being able to give me an equal amount of time, would actually become better at providing me with a higher quality of love if he had the chance to have another wife or wives. I think it would be the best thing for his progression, to learn how to love all types of people. But I say that of course feeling like the same thing could apply to me also. Wouldn't be easy, to love so many people I think. But that's the type of person we worship, someone who can intimately love everyone.

[zionsremnant]

Please, I do not mean to be anything but terribly disturbed, and astonished at our lack of understanding the scriptures and taking the Lord's word for His word and not wrest with the scriptures, and treat something so casually as adultery and sharing the bed of another woman, or man as if it would not tear out the heart of the other spouse if they were normal in any degree.

Please, Jacob 2 is clear. Jacob was told to speak to the men, not the women about sharing their husbands, but the men who began to wax in abominations and a crime. I would like to take apart this scripture, and I believe, if we can read the words as God spake them clearly and without room for err, we can see that this is about the Lord's dictate and command for a righteous branch ie Isaiah 11:1, the shoot that comes out preparatory for Zion.

He will not mess around and allow what was allowed or tolerated before. And we have completely misconstrued that the Lord is saying the opposite. He is not saying in verse 30 that if He were to command "otherwise" He would give a command to have more than one wife. This is what the brethren did after Joseph Smith said if his life, Joseph's was worth nothing to the people in the church, as he came back as a lamb to the slaughter because they would not listen to them, they did not build the temple, they did not heed his words against polygamy, he died, and we were left with what Jacob 5 says is the wild branch overtaking the good. Please, let's know the language of the Lord, and that Joseph said he did not practice polygamy, someone is lying.

Jacob says that the Lord said that "If the Lord did not command his people (to obey the commandment of Lehi to have only one wife) then they would hearken to "these things', which is the abominations, it is linked in the verses before. The Lord did not say He would alter that command given to Adam, and in D&C 49 that for the earth to fulfill the measure of its creation it took ONE woman and ONE man. There are a multitude of men that died in wars, there is no reason for a woman to think that their only value is to create seed when the Lord spoke for the women AGAINST the men.

There is no way a logical, feeling, sensitive woman could live through seeing her husband go to bed with another woman and feel comforted that she is doing the Lord's will when he FORBID it. The women who did this, lived through hell, until it was eradicated by the same God who forbid it in the first place!

It is easier for her to lay down her life, than do such a thing. It is not a sacrifice, it is her death, the same thing. How can men be so insensitive, or any woman, for that manner, to think the Lord is kidding, and He is going to change it in a future date when he forbids it for His people.

We can break that verse down, and you will see it is like a verse "moderation in all things", it does not exist.

I humbly say these things. I have studied this for 15 years, and read all of the Times and Seasons and all of Joseph's words. The Lord does not contradict Himself, we contradict Him by adding or taking upon ourselves our suppositions.

Christ had to have taught one wife, it is in TImothy and Titus, The Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. There is no shoe that is going to drop.

The Lord commanded Abraham to wait for His command. Sariah convinced him otherwise, and she said her wrong be upon him. Isaac only had one wife, D&C 132 is the only revelation that is not questionable that is hearsay that Joseph wrote to William Clayton, yet there is no record of it.

The Lord promises He will never do such a thing as to have a command be secret and practiced by a few, and others do not do so. The Lord is no respecter of persons. He commands, and He changeth not.

D&C 132 again was not put in by Joseph, it is not in his papers. It was inserted and it has been found to be very questionable as the Lord does not work in secret, and proves the truth of all things openly by the mouth of two or more witnesses.

The journals were changed, this is a well known fact. Please, my fellow wonderful saints, how can we not know Joseph Smith's words. They are the same as the Lord's.

Read on to Chapter 3, the Lord clarifies His position. David was given wives out of custom, and we know from Nephi that there were many plain and precious things taken out of the bible or the book that we have prior to the Book of Mormon, which is our book for the righteous branch of the Lord, in the end of Jacob 5.

[Sarah]

Maybe Father needs you to practice polygamy, and sacrifice for others in the same way he needed a Savior to suffer so much pain and anguish, and ultimately a horrible death for the sake of all his children. As women we lay down our lives and our bodies down for others. We also might have an opportunity to give the chance of Celestial glory to other women who do not have husbands. This is not the sole purpose, but one very important one. Can't you imagine Father asking you to share your husband so that another woman could have the same privileges you have?

I was watching a documentary about some guy who sat up a sperm bank for only genius donors. They interviewed many of the couples who had been able to get pregnant using the services of the clinic. In one instance a man who had already had children before a divorce, if I recall right, had gotten fixed before getting married to his current wife. In time she wanted a child and so he proposed she get insemination because he realized how much she wanted the child and he loved her enough to encourage her to go for it.

That is sacrificing ones pride for the love of another. As a man I can seriously say additional sex is not an important factor in seeing the advantages of polygamy. Being able to have additional children would be the incentive, and allowing women who would otherwise not have that opportunity, at least having a father the children would know, would be the major motivator. As for women allowing or even encouraging a man to take additional wives for that purpose that is a great act of love to others, and a sign of being willing to throw off the incorrect traditions of the society for which they live.

I agree that ultimately we must love God and others more than ourselves, even if it means giving up what we feel we need. I actually think my husband, while perhaps not being able to give me an equal amount of time, would actually become better at providing me with a higher quality of love if he had the chance to have another wife or wives. I think it would be the best thing for his progression, to learn how to love all types of people. But I say that of course feeling like the same thing could apply to me also. Wouldn't be easy, to love so many people I think. But that's the type of person we worship, someone who can intimately love everyone.

I should have made it clear that I was talking in an eternal sense and was not advocating for plural marriage in a Telestial sphere. I was thinking about how my Dad has grown to love another woman after my mom died, and how I can see that being good for him.

How many people on this earth have had multiple spouses because their first, second, or third needed to pass beyond the veil. My Dad was sealed to a second wife, but even if he wasn't sealed, my mom would still be very aware of the second wife's presence in his life right now. I know she is watching all of us from heaven. Would being on the other side of the veil make it that much easier to bear? I'm sure it would help, but one still has the eternal question of whether marriage lasts beyond the veil, and what relationships will endure and which ones will not.

It is getting old rebutting the same claims over and over again that Joseph never participated in polygamy. There is ample evidence that he did, despite his public statements about polygamy.

[zionsremnant]

Thank you for sharing that Sarah. Without beating a dead horse, I do not mean to do that. I want to know what evidence shows that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Are we saying that Joseph said he did not, and there is evidence that he did, and by whom.

I went through a 6 year court case, where I know that a person's own statements is there truth, you can not say one thing and mean another. Is this what we are saying, that Joseph DID say he did not practice it and was prosecuting on record those that were, and he was not telling the truth under oath. Is this our prophet?

I appreciate your comments, and I believe you. I know that the relationships we have on the other side are so loving, so present. I lost my mother at 16, and my father married again. He did, and she is now married to one that she will be sealed to. I feel I married my best friend, and our relationship is very different than that of my former spouse.

I do not discount these, as we are angels for each other on the other side. What I am trying to say is that it is about the Lord and His commands, and Joseph Smith's reputation that is being cleared after all these years. If we do not know the Lord, and His words, we can fall for the precepts of men, or women who mean well.

It was important enough for Joseph and Hyrum to send out letters, and suing people who were saying that he was teaching such a thing. We have taken that out of the history books, but it is on record. He died with his testimony still standing after all these years, and DNA evidence proving that the Lord could not have had Joseph restore something privately while publicly stating a different story.

It will continue to come up until it is eradicated in the LDS people's minds. The Lord is so merciful to have us be corrected and says He will do such to His church in the last days, and clean up the branches and all false doctrines. 3 Nephi Christ says the Gentiles will repent and be taught the true points of His doctrine, and His righteous branch will have been purified and will obey that one commandment spoken of by Jacob.

It is important enough obviously for people to still be debating, and the Lord said there shall at one day be no more disputations among us, for we will all know the Lord, and be corrected.

[Fiannan]

With polygamy maybe this gentleman's services would not be so much in demand:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/su ... 00-7170289" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lots of women must turn this direction if they hope to have children in this life.

[brlenox]

Thank you for sharing that Sarah. Without beating a dead horse, I do not mean to do that. I want to know what evidence shows that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Are we saying that Joseph said he did not, and there is evidence that he did, and by whom.

I went through a 6 year court case, where I know that a person's own statements is there truth, you can not say one thing and mean another. Is this what we are saying, that Joseph DID say he did not practice it and was prosecuting on record those that were, and he was not telling the truth under oath. Is this our prophet?

I appreciate your comments, and I believe you. I know that the relationships we have on the other side are so loving, so present. I lost my mother at 16, and my father married again. He did, and she is now married to one that she will be sealed to. I feel I married my best friend, and our relationship is very different than that of my former spouse.

I do not discount these, as we are angels for each other on the other side. What I am trying to say is that it is about the Lord and His commands, and Joseph Smith's reputation that is being cleared after all these years. If we do not know the Lord, and His words, we can fall for the precepts of men, or women who mean well.

It was important enough for Joseph and Hyrum to send out letters, and suing people who were saying that he was teaching such a thing. We have taken that out of the history books, but it is on record. He died with his testimony still standing after all these years, and DNA evidence proving that the Lord could not have had Joseph restore something privately while publicly stating a different story.

It will continue to come up until it is eradicated in the LDS people's minds. The Lord is so merciful to have us be corrected and says He will do such to His church in the last days, and clean up the branches and all false doctrines. 3 Nephi Christ says the Gentiles will repent and be taught the true points of His doctrine, and His righteous branch will have been purified and will obey that one commandment spoken of by Jacob.

It is important enough obviously for people to still be debating, and the Lord said there shall at one day be no more disputations among us, for we will all know the Lord, and be corrected.

I'm not going to put a ton of time in this but am going to be very general.

I think there is value in understanding the case against Joseph a bit better. Joseph was brought up on charges that were based on John C. Bennett’s affidavits against him. The same John C. Bennett that had earlier absolved Joseph of any involvement when he was feeling a bit more repentant just after he had been brought up on charges before the church for multiple crimes including several types of immorality. In an affidavit of which there are several others the City Council testified:

AFFIDAVIT OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
We the undersigned, members of the city council of the City of Nauvoo, testify that John C. Bennett was not under duress at the time that he testified before the city council May 19th 1842 concerning Joseph Smith’s in­nocence, virtue, and pure teaching—his state­ments that he has lately made concerning this matter are false,—there was no excitement at the time, nor was he in any wise threatened menaced or intimidated, his appearance at the city council was voluntary, he asked the privi­lege of speaking, which was granted, after speaking for some time on the city affairs, Joseph Smith asked him if he knew any thing bad concerning his public, or private character. he then delivered those statements contained in the testimony voluntarially, and of his own free will, and went of his own accord as free as any member of the council. We do further testify that there is no such thing as a Danite Society in this city nor any combination, other than the Masonic Lodge, of which we have any knowledge.
WILSON LAW, GEO. A. SMITH, JOHN TAYLOR, GEO. W. HARRIS, W. WOODRUFF, N. K. WHITNEY, VINSON KNIGHT, BRIGHAM YOUNG, H. C. KIMBALL, CHARLES C. RICH, JOHN P. GREEN, ORSON SPENCER, WILLIAM MARKS,
Subscribed, and sworn to, by the persons whose names appear to the foregoing affidavit, this 20th day of July, A. D. 1842; except N. K. Whitney, who subscribed and affirmed to the foregoing this day, before me. DANIEL H. WELLS,
Justice of the Peace, within and for Han­cock County, Illinois. Daniel H. Wells, Esq. is an old resident in this place, and is not a Mormon.

Still this is only of value in my opinion in establishing the character of John C. Bennett. For in some of the future court cases against Joseph it will be sworn affidavits by John C. Bennett which will be used as the primary claims against Joseph. The point being that John C. Bennett has a history of saying whatever he has to, in front of whatever audience he is before, to secure for himself the best outcome he can get.

By July of that same year as the above affidavit Bennett has met with Martha Brotherton and drawn up an affidavit charging Joseph with polygamy and similar crimes (see Bennett, History of the Saints, 236–240). So was Bennett lying in May when before the council when he said Joseph was innocent or was he lying in July when he said he was guilty?

John C. Bennett also was never privy to actual discussions that were to define the institution of polygamy as it was exercised in the church. Therefore he created terms such as spiritual wifery to define what he thought was happening in the church. He did not know how it was authorized, how it was managed and how it was to be conducted. Thus in these affidavits where he accuses Joseph he draws upon his misguided understanding of an institution that he thinks is like his spiritual wifery practice which is positively nothing like the approved restoration of polygamy as a priesthood ordinance.

Therefore Joseph has absolutely no problem stating that he is not guilty of the claims against him as the claims against him are spiritual wifery conditions and not polygamy as he was practicing it. So for Joseph to deny the charges brought against which described a practice, perhaps similar in some respects, but completely lacking in others is only correct. He was not practicing what they accused him of.

[Melissa]

I wonder how many people would leave the church if the church denounced polygamy?

Likewise I wonder how many would leave the church if they brought it back?

[Sarah]

I wonder how many people would leave the church if the church denounced polygamy?

Likewise I wonder how many would leave the church if they brought it back?

They have already denounced polygamy if it is currently practiced, but I think people are waiting/wanting a denouncement of Joseph's or the early Church's involvement, which the Church hasn't done yet, and even more still, some are hoping the prophet will tell us what to expect with marriage in eternity and whether or not plural marriage is practiced there. I don't see the Church telling us either point. I do expect that it will be brought back in the millennium though.

[Zathura]

Thank you for sharing that Sarah. Without beating a dead horse, I do not mean to do that. I want to know what evidence shows that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Are we saying that Joseph said he did not, and there is evidence that he did, and by whom.

I went through a 6 year court case, where I know that a person's own statements is there truth, you can not say one thing and mean another. Is this what we are saying, that Joseph DID say he did not practice it and was prosecuting on record those that were, and he was not telling the truth under oath. Is this our prophet?

I appreciate your comments, and I believe you. I know that the relationships we have on the other side are so loving, so present. I lost my mother at 16, and my father married again. He did, and she is now married to one that she will be sealed to. I feel I married my best friend, and our relationship is very different than that of my former spouse.

I do not discount these, as we are angels for each other on the other side. What I am trying to say is that it is about the Lord and His commands, and Joseph Smith's reputation that is being cleared after all these years. If we do not know the Lord, and His words, we can fall for the precepts of men, or women who mean well.

It was important enough for Joseph and Hyrum to send out letters, and suing people who were saying that he was teaching such a thing. We have taken that out of the history books, but it is on record. He died with his testimony still standing after all these years, and DNA evidence proving that the Lord could not have had Joseph restore something privately while publicly stating a different story.

It will continue to come up until it is eradicated in the LDS people's minds. The Lord is so merciful to have us be corrected and says He will do such to His church in the last days, and clean up the branches and all false doctrines. 3 Nephi Christ says the Gentiles will repent and be taught the true points of His doctrine, and His righteous branch will have been purified and will obey that one commandment spoken of by Jacob.

It is important enough obviously for people to still be debating, and the Lord said there shall at one day be no more disputations among us, for we will all know the Lord, and be corrected.

I'm not going to put a ton of time in this but am going to be very general.

I think there is value in understanding the case against Joseph a bit better. Joseph was brought up on charges that were based on John C. Bennett’s affidavits against him. The same John C. Bennett that had earlier absolved Joseph of any involvement when he was feeling a bit more repentant just after he had been brought up on charges before the church for multiple crimes including several types of immorality. In an affidavit of which there are several others the City Council testified:

AFFIDAVIT OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
We the undersigned, members of the city council of the City of Nauvoo, testify that John C. Bennett was not under duress at the time that he testified before the city council May 19th 1842 concerning Joseph Smith’s in­nocence, virtue, and pure teaching—his state­ments that he has lately made concerning this matter are false,—there was no excitement at the time, nor was he in any wise threatened menaced or intimidated, his appearance at the city council was voluntary, he asked the privi­lege of speaking, which was granted, after speaking for some time on the city affairs, Joseph Smith asked him if he knew any thing bad concerning his public, or private character. he then delivered those statements contained in the testimony voluntarially, and of his own free will, and went of his own accord as free as any member of the council. We do further testify that there is no such thing as a Danite Society in this city nor any combination, other than the Masonic Lodge, of which we have any knowledge.
WILSON LAW, GEO. A. SMITH, JOHN TAYLOR, GEO. W. HARRIS, W. WOODRUFF, N. K. WHITNEY, VINSON KNIGHT, BRIGHAM YOUNG, H. C. KIMBALL, CHARLES C. RICH, JOHN P. GREEN, ORSON SPENCER, WILLIAM MARKS,
Subscribed, and sworn to, by the persons whose names appear to the foregoing affidavit, this 20th day of July, A. D. 1842; except N. K. Whitney, who subscribed and affirmed to the foregoing this day, before me. DANIEL H. WELLS,
Justice of the Peace, within and for Han­cock County, Illinois. Daniel H. Wells, Esq. is an old resident in this place, and is not a Mormon.

Still this is only of value in my opinion in establishing the character of John C. Bennett. For in some of the future court cases against Joseph it will be sworn affidavits by John C. Bennett which will be used as the primary claims against Joseph. The point being that John C. Bennett has a history of saying whatever he has to, in front of whatever audience he is before, to secure for himself the best outcome he can get.

By July of that same year as the above affidavit Bennett has met with Martha Brotherton and drawn up an affidavit charging Joseph with polygamy and similar crimes (see Bennett, History of the Saints, 236–240). So was Bennett lying in May when before the council when he said Joseph was innocent or was he lying in July when he said he was guilty?

John C. Bennett also was never privy to actual discussions that were to define the institution of polygamy as it was exercised in the church. Therefore he created terms such as spiritual wifery to define what he thought was happening in the church. He did not know how it was authorized, how it was managed and how it was to be conducted. Thus in these affidavits where he accuses Joseph he draws upon his misguided understanding of an institution that he thinks is like his spiritual wifery practice which is positively nothing like the approved restoration of polygamy as a priesthood ordinance.

Therefore Joseph has absolutely no problem stating that he is not guilty of the claims against him as the claims against him are spiritual wifery conditions and not polygamy as he was practicing it. So for Joseph to deny the charges brought against which described a practice, perhaps similar in some respects, but completely lacking in others is only correct. He was not practicing what they accused him of.

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."
—Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6:410–411


This quote seems to be him stating that he is not guilty of the "Polygamy as he was practicing it".
"What a thing it is for a manto be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one" - that kinda says it right there, doesn't it?

[freedomforall]

Thank you for sharing that Sarah. Without beating a dead horse, I do not mean to do that. I want to know what evidence shows that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Are we saying that Joseph said he did not, and there is evidence that he did, and by whom.

I went through a 6 year court case, where I know that a person's own statements is there truth, you can not say one thing and mean another. Is this what we are saying, that Joseph DID say he did not practice it and was prosecuting on record those that were, and he was not telling the truth under oath. Is this our prophet?

I appreciate your comments, and I believe you. I know that the relationships we have on the other side are so loving, so present. I lost my mother at 16, and my father married again. He did, and she is now married to one that she will be sealed to. I feel I married my best friend, and our relationship is very different than that of my former spouse.

I do not discount these, as we are angels for each other on the other side. What I am trying to say is that it is about the Lord and His commands, and Joseph Smith's reputation that is being cleared after all these years. If we do not know the Lord, and His words, we can fall for the precepts of men, or women who mean well.

It was important enough for Joseph and Hyrum to send out letters, and suing people who were saying that he was teaching such a thing. We have taken that out of the history books, but it is on record. He died with his testimony still standing after all these years, and DNA evidence proving that the Lord could not have had Joseph restore something privately while publicly stating a different story.

It will continue to come up until it is eradicated in the LDS people's minds. The Lord is so merciful to have us be corrected and says He will do such to His church in the last days, and clean up the branches and all false doctrines. 3 Nephi Christ says the Gentiles will repent and be taught the true points of His doctrine, and His righteous branch will have been purified and will obey that one commandment spoken of by Jacob.

It is important enough obviously for people to still be debating, and the Lord said there shall at one day be no more disputations among us, for we will all know the Lord, and be corrected.

I'm not going to put a ton of time in this but am going to be very general.

I think there is value in understanding the case against Joseph a bit better. Joseph was brought up on charges that were based on John C. Bennett’s affidavits against him. The same John C. Bennett that had earlier absolved Joseph of any involvement when he was feeling a bit more repentant just after he had been brought up on charges before the church for multiple crimes including several types of immorality. In an affidavit of which there are several others the City Council testified:

AFFIDAVIT OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
We the undersigned, members of the city council of the City of Nauvoo, testify that John C. Bennett was not under duress at the time that he testified before the city council May 19th 1842 concerning Joseph Smith’s in­nocence, virtue, and pure teaching—his state­ments that he has lately made concerning this matter are false,—there was no excitement at the time, nor was he in any wise threatened menaced or intimidated, his appearance at the city council was voluntary, he asked the privi­lege of speaking, which was granted, after speaking for some time on the city affairs, Joseph Smith asked him if he knew any thing bad concerning his public, or private character. he then delivered those statements contained in the testimony voluntarially, and of his own free will, and went of his own accord as free as any member of the council. We do further testify that there is no such thing as a Danite Society in this city nor any combination, other than the Masonic Lodge, of which we have any knowledge.
WILSON LAW, GEO. A. SMITH, JOHN TAYLOR, GEO. W. HARRIS, W. WOODRUFF, N. K. WHITNEY, VINSON KNIGHT, BRIGHAM YOUNG, H. C. KIMBALL, CHARLES C. RICH, JOHN P. GREEN, ORSON SPENCER, WILLIAM MARKS,
Subscribed, and sworn to, by the persons whose names appear to the foregoing affidavit, this 20th day of July, A. D. 1842; except N. K. Whitney, who subscribed and affirmed to the foregoing this day, before me. DANIEL H. WELLS,
Justice of the Peace, within and for Han­cock County, Illinois. Daniel H. Wells, Esq. is an old resident in this place, and is not a Mormon.

Still this is only of value in my opinion in establishing the character of John C. Bennett. For in some of the future court cases against Joseph it will be sworn affidavits by John C. Bennett which will be used as the primary claims against Joseph. The point being that John C. Bennett has a history of saying whatever he has to, in front of whatever audience he is before, to secure for himself the best outcome he can get.

By July of that same year as the above affidavit Bennett has met with Martha Brotherton and drawn up an affidavit charging Joseph with polygamy and similar crimes (see Bennett, History of the Saints, 236–240). So was Bennett lying in May when before the council when he said Joseph was innocent or was he lying in July when he said he was guilty?

John C. Bennett also was never privy to actual discussions that were to define the institution of polygamy as it was exercised in the church. Therefore he created terms such as spiritual wifery to define what he thought was happening in the church. He did not know how it was authorized, how it was managed and how it was to be conducted. Thus in these affidavits where he accuses Joseph he draws upon his misguided understanding of an institution that he thinks is like his spiritual wifery practice which is positively nothing like the approved restoration of polygamy as a priesthood ordinance.

Therefore Joseph has absolutely no problem stating that he is not guilty of the claims against him as the claims against him are spiritual wifery conditions and not polygamy as he was practicing it. So for Joseph to deny the charges brought against which described a practice, perhaps similar in some respects, but completely lacking in others is only correct. He was not practicing what they accused him of.

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."
—Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6:410–411

This quote seems to be him stating that he is not guilty of the "Polygamy as he was practicing it".
"What a thing it is for a manto be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one" - that kinda says it right there, doesn't it?

Okay, so how did so many other church leaders come up with the idea of having more than one wife, if it weren't for someone else in higher authority telling them it is now a commandment? My g-g-grandfather, Wilford Woodruff, had many wives. Did he take it upon himself to do that? I truly doubt it. How about Brigham Young and others? Well, let's find out.

From Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we read:

Latter-day Saints believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is the Lord’s standing law of marriage. In biblical times, the Lord commanded some to practice plural marriage—the marriage of one man and more than one woman.1 By revelation, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage among Church members in the early 1840s. For more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints under the direction of the Church President.2

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord].”3

Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes. It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in many ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population. Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints. Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition.4
The Beginnings of Plural Marriage in the Church

Polygamy had been permitted for millennia in many cultures and religions, but, with few exceptions, it was rejected in Western cultures. In Joseph Smith’s time, monogamy was the only legal form of marriage in the United States.

The revelation on plural marriage, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, emerged partly from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. Latter-day Saints understood that they were living in the latter days, in what the revelations called the “dispensation of the fulness of times.”5 Ancient principles—such as prophets, priesthood, and temples—would be restored to the earth. Plural marriage, practiced by ancient patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, was one of those ancient principles.6

The same revelation that taught of plural marriage was embedded within a revelation about eternal marriage—the teaching that marriage could last beyond death. Monogamous and plural marriages performed by priesthood power could seal loved ones to each other for eternity, on condition of righteousness.7

The revelation on marriage stated general principles; it did not explain how to implement plural marriage in all its particulars. In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith married additional wives and authorized other Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage. The practice was introduced carefully and incrementally, and participants vowed to keep their participation confidential, anticipating a time when husbands and wives could acknowledge one another publicly.

If you would like to learn more about the beginnings of plural marriage in the Church, click here.
Plural Marriage and Families in 19th-Century Utah

Between 1852 and 1890, Latter-day Saints openly practiced plural marriage. Most plural families lived in Utah. Women and men who lived within plural marriage attested to challenges and difficulties but also to the love and joy they found within their families. They believed it was a commandment of God at that time and that obedience would bring great blessings to them and their posterity. Church leaders taught that participants in plural marriages should seek to develop a generous spirit of unselfishness and the pure love of Christ for everyone involved.

Although some leaders had large polygamous families, two-thirds of polygamist men had only two wives at a time. Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available. Women sometimes married at young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement, which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time. At its peak in 1857, perhaps one half of all Utah Latter-day Saints experienced plural marriage as a husband, wife, or child. The percentage of those involved in plural marriage steadily declined over the next three decades.

During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, not all Latter-day Saints were expected to live the principle, though all were expected to accept it as a revelation from God. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or a monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.

If you would like to learn more about plural marriage and families in Utah, click here.
Anti-polygamy Legislation and the End of Plural Marriage

Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed laws against the practice of plural marriage. After the U.S. Supreme Court found the anti-polygamy laws to be constitutional in 1879, federal officials began prosecuting polygamous husbands and wives during the 1880s. Believing these laws to be unjust, Latter-day Saints engaged in civil disobedience by continuing to practice plural marriage and by attempting to avoid arrest by moving to the homes of friends or family or by hiding under assumed names. When convicted, they paid fines and submitted to jail time.

One of the anti-polygamy laws permitted the U.S. government to seize Church property. Federal officers soon threatened to take Latter-day Saint temples. The work of salvation for both the living and the dead was now in jeopardy. In September 1890, Church President Wilford Woodruff felt inspired to issue the Manifesto. “Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages,” President Woodruff explained, “I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.”8

The full implications of the document were not apparent at first. The Lord’s way is to speak “line upon line; here a little, there a little.”9 Like the beginning of plural marriage in the Church, the end of the practice was gradual and incremental, a process filled with difficulties and uncertainties.

The Manifesto declared President Woodruff’s intention to submit to the laws of the United States, and new plural marriages within that jurisdiction largely came to an end. But a small number of plural marriages continued to be performed in Mexico and Canada, under the sanction of some Church leaders. As a rule, these marriages were not promoted by Church leaders and were difficult to get approved. Either one or both of the spouses who entered into these unions typically had to agree to remain in Canada or Mexico. On an exceptional basis, a smaller number of plural marriages were performed within the United States between the years 1890 and 1904.

The Church’s role in these marriages became a subject of intense public debate after Reed Smoot, an Apostle, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1903. At the April 1904 general conference, Church President Joseph F. Smith issued a forceful statement, known as the Second Manifesto, making new plural marriages punishable by excommunication.10 Since President Smith’s day, Church Presidents have repeatedly emphasized that the Church and its members are no longer authorized to enter into plural marriage and have underscored the sincerity of their words by urging local leaders to bring noncompliant members before Church disciplinary councils.

If you would like to learn more about the end of plural marriage in the Church, click here.
Conclusion

Plural marriage was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration. For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a trial of faith. It violated both cultural and legal norms, leading to persecution and revilement. Despite these hardships, plural marriage benefited the Church in innumerable ways. Through the lineage of these 19th-century Saints have come many Latter-day Saints who have been faithful to their gospel covenants as righteous mothers and fathers; loyal disciples of Jesus Christ; devoted Church members, leaders, and missionaries; and good citizens and prominent public officials. Modern Latter-day Saints honor and respect these faithful pioneers who gave so much for their faith, families, and community.

Resources:

1) Doctrine and Covenants 132:34–38; Jacob 2:30; see also Genesis 16.
2) Doctrine and Covenants 132:7. The Church President periodically set apart others to perform plural marriages.
3) Jacob 2:30.
4) 1 Peter 2:9; see also Jacob 1:8; Acts 5:41.
5) Doctrine and Covenants 112:30; 124:41; 128:18.
6) See Doctrine and Covenants 132:1, 34–38.
7) Doctrine and Covenants 132:7; 131:2–3.
8) Official Declaration 1; “Official Declaration,” Deseret Evening News, Sept. 25, 1890.
9) Isaiah 28:10, 13; see also 2 Nephi 28:30; Doctrine and Covenants 98:12.
10) “Official Statement by President Joseph F. Smith,” Deseret Evening News, Apr. 6, 1904, 1.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marri ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SEE also: Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

Polygamy essays provide information about early LDS Church — and current leadership

Mormon leaders admit founder Joseph Smith had 30 wives

Does anyone know there was a second manifesto issued by President Joseph F Smith in 1904?
Second Manifesto

Also in relation to polygamy, we have a numerous amount of Fundamentalist breakoffs from the beginning LDS church.
List of Mormon fundamentalist leaders

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

Do we now have or have we had members of any offshoot sects on this forum? Can this be why sometimes there is so much contention because members of other offshoot sects sign up as a forum member just to stir up trouble?

[Melissa]

I don't really understand the reason behind polygamy.

[freedomforall]

I don't really understand the reason behind polygamy.

Jacob 2:27-30
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
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.

The Lord says that unless he commands men to have more than one wife in order to bring an increase of little ones into the world, we are to live the law of one man and one woman in marriage.
There are times that God has had men marry more than one wife.

[Melissa]

I don't really understand the reason behind polygamy.

Jacob 2:27-30
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
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.

The Lord says that unless he commands men to have more than one wife in order to bring an increase of little ones into the world, we are to live the law of one man and one woman in marriage.
There are times that God has had men marry more than one wife.

There has been debate over this group of scriptures.
Eitherway, it has been stated that there is not an increase in children born in polygamy vs. monogamy.
Best situation all around is for us to pair off.
Now if there was only 1 man and 2 women left on the earth, I could probably see the reason God might approve (ie. Have compassion and not damn) the 3rd wheel from engaging with him for children.

Otherwise, I don't get it.

Also, if Abraham didn't engage with Hagar, the Jews wouldn't have the hatred they do and live under the threat of eradication on a daily basis. So God really condoned polygamy in this case to raise righteous seed? I think not.

[Kitkat]

Just out of curiosity who out there is willing to admit polygamy 'feels' wrong?''

I'll be the first

[BrotherOfMahonri]

Just out of curiosity who out there is willing to admit polygamy 'feels' wrong?''

I'll be the first

2nd...

[freedomforall]

I don't really understand the reason behind polygamy.

Jacob 2:27-30
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
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.

The Lord says that unless he commands men to have more than one wife in order to bring an increase of little ones into the world, we are to live the law of one man and one woman in marriage.
There are times that God has had men marry more than one wife.

There has been debate over this group of scriptures. That's okay, many scriptures people fight over, but it doesn't change the actual meaning, it just shows man's thinking is off.
Eitherway, it has been stated that there is not an increase in children born in polygamy vs. monogamy. By whom?
Best situation all around is for us to pair off.
Now if there was only 1 man and 2 women left on the earth, I could probably see the reason God might approve (ie. Have compassion and not damn) the 3rd wheel from engaging with him for children.

Isaiah 4:1
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.


Otherwise, I don't get it.

Also, if Abraham didn't engage with Hagar, the Jews wouldn't have the hatred they do and live under the threat of eradication on a daily basis. So God really condoned polygamy in this case to raise righteous seed? I think not.

Again, this is okay because Joseph had no children from any wife other than Emma.

If the only purpose of polygamy was to "raise up seed," then why did Joseph not have children by his plural wives?

Sometimes I don't get things either, but it doesn't effect my salvation in the least, and is not worth arguing over, now is it?

[Melissa]

I don't really understand the reason behind polygamy.

Jacob 2:27-30
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
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.

The Lord says that unless he commands men to have more than one wife in order to bring an increase of little ones into the world, we are to live the law of one man and one woman in marriage.
There are times that God has had men marry more than one wife.

There has been debate over this group of scriptures. That's okay, many scriptures people fight over, but it doesn't change the actual meaning, it just shows man's thinking is off.
Eitherway, it has been stated that there is not an increase in children born in polygamy vs. monogamy. By whom?
Best situation all around is for us to pair off.
Now if there was only 1 man and 2 women left on the earth, I could probably see the reason God might approve (ie. Have compassion and not damn) the 3rd wheel from engaging with him for children.

Isaiah 4:1
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.


Otherwise, I don't get it.

Also, if Abraham didn't engage with Hagar, the Jews wouldn't have the hatred they do and live under the threat of eradication on a daily basis. So God really condoned polygamy in this case to raise righteous seed? I think not.

Again, this is okay because Joseph had no children from any wife other than Emma.

If the only purpose of polygamy was to "raise up seed," then why did Joseph not have children by his plural wives?

Sometimes I don't get things either, but it doesn't effect my salvation in the least, and is not worth arguing over, now is it?

Isiah 4:1 is actually better and rightly placed at the end of the previous chapter. It makes no sense where it is based on our chapter divisions. Researchers of Isaiah have stated as such, it's part of chapter 3....which means it happened in the past.

[Melissa]

Just out of curiosity who out there is willing to admit polygamy 'feels' wrong?''

I'll be the first

2nd...

3rd

[freedomforall]

Isaiah 4:1
1 And in that day (a)seven women shall take hold of one (b)man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy (c)name, to take away our (d)reproach.

1 a seven
IE because of scarcity of men due to wars. See Isa. 3:25.

Isa. 3:25
25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

1 b man
Isa. 3:25 (24–25)

24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

1 c name
TG Marriage, Marry.

1 d reproach
IE the stigma of being unmarried and childless. TG Reproach.

So can we deduce that all this took place hundreds of years ago?

We have to figure what war is being referenced, when everyone was bald, and being garbed in sackcloth. And what about the stink?

Researchers of Isaiah have stated as such, it's part of chapter 3....which means it happened in the past

This all sounds futuristic to me, despite what researchers assume. But that's just me trying to follow scripture instead of researchers. This could still be the precepts of men, right?

[Melissa]

Isaiah 4:1
1 And in that day (a)seven women shall take hold of one (b)man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy (c)name, to take away our (d)reproach.

1 a seven
IE because of scarcity of men due to wars. See Isa. 3:25.

Isa. 3:25
25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

1 b man
Isa. 3:25 (24–25)

24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

1 c name
TG Marriage, Marry.

1 d reproach
IE the stigma of being unmarried and childless. TG Reproach.

So can we deduce that all this took place hundreds of years ago?

We have to figure what war is being referenced, when everyone was bald, and being garbed in sackcloth. And what about the stink?

Researchers of Isaiah have stated as such, it's part of chapter 3....which means it happened in the past

This all sounds futuristic to me, despite what researchers assume. But that's just me trying to follow scripture instead of researchers. This could still be the precepts of men, right?

Honestly your efforts are no different than any others...so if you keep saying it's all precepts of men, then that has to apply to you as well. And add to that, scriptures have been changed and adjusted over time. Footnotes are not necessarily revelation on the matter.

That verse makes more sense at the end of the previous chapter. Even if it is a future scenario, the interpretation. of women turning to a man could be symbolic for the women (7-perfect number or complete) and man (Christ). It also never tells us what happens after the women's pleas. It never says the men abliged them.

But hey if guys want to marry bald stinky ugly and cursed women....go ahead. I don't see LDS marrying them. People quote this stuff but have limited view on what the situation really is.

[freedomforall]

Isaiah 4:1
1 And in that day (a)seven women shall take hold of one (b)man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy (c)name, to take away our (d)reproach.

1 a seven
IE because of scarcity of men due to wars. See Isa. 3:25.

Isa. 3:25
25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

1 b man
Isa. 3:25 (24–25)

24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.

1 c name
TG Marriage, Marry.

1 d reproach
IE the stigma of being unmarried and childless. TG Reproach.

So can we deduce that all this took place hundreds of years ago?

We have to figure what war is being referenced, when everyone was bald, and being garbed in sackcloth. And what about the stink?

Researchers of Isaiah have stated as such, it's part of chapter 3....which means it happened in the past

This all sounds futuristic to me, despite what researchers assume. But that's just me trying to follow scripture instead of researchers. This could still be the precepts of men, right?

Honestly your efforts are no different than any others...so if you keep saying it's all precepts of men, then that has to apply to you as well. And add to that, scriptures have been changed and adjusted over time. Footnotes are not necessarily revelation on the matter.

That verse makes more sense at the end of the previous chapter. Even if it is a future scenario, the interpretation. of women turning to a man could be symbolic for the women (7-perfect number or complete) and man (Christ). It also never tells us what happens after the women's pleas. It never says the men abliged them.

But hey if guys want to marry bald stinky ugly and cursed women....go ahead. I don't see LDS marrying them. People quote this stuff but have limited view on what the situation really is.

Believe me I know what I say. A limited view is by listening to researchers instead of scripture itself and the provided references giving us further light and knowledge.
Actually, I care less whether or not people believe as they wish. What matters is what God says, right? Besides I could be in error on this. Again, it doesn't effect my salvation one way or another at this stage. Or yours either.

[Stacy Oliver]

The Lord commanded the Israelites to commit genocide - How do I feel good about this?
The Lord commanded Abraham to kill his son - How do I feel good about this?
The Lord killed lots and lots of people by flood - How do I feel good about this?
The Lord sent fiery serpents to bite the Israelites - How do I feel good about this?

If we get to reject things because we don't like them, then we'd reject a good amount of the scriptures. Of course I would rather not live polygamy. But I would also rather not commit genocide, or, to a lesser extent, leave my house and go live in the wilderness. But God's ways are not my ways.

[Fiannan]

Polygamy makes scientific and sociological sense. Even without scripture it makes sense.