Common Sense Prophecy: Polygamy will be renounced by the LDS Church

[slimjamm]

The items in red are my own writings. I was highlighting out certain points. The rest is from Joseph. Sorry for any confusion. Here is a quick link to a PDF file of it. http://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No worries. ;)

Anyway, to me, it is clear that it was Brigham Young who advanced the Adam-God doctrine, which was later denounced by Bunker and Pratt and subsequently, Joseph Fielding Smith.

I agree completely Brigham advanced that doctrine. But he also stated that He was first taught the doctrine from Joseph. Minutes of Meeting, at Historian's Office; Great Salt Lake City; 7 P.M. April 4, 1860 "It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God &c When in Luke Johnson's".

This doctrine is also the only way to explain how Michael/Adam, and Eve, had immortal/celestial bodies before and while in the Garden of Eden. Any other explanation just doesn't fit the patterns established in the scriptures on the Plan of Salvation.

[marc]

I am also familiar with BY's claim that he learned it from Joseph, but I'm not convinced it's true. As for explaining how Adam and Eve had immortal, celestial bodies before and while in Eden, I'm not familiar with that doctrine either, but honestly, it's not something that is important enough for me to study. Feel free to supply references and citations with your posts, though, without mingling your own philosophies. Or at least if you express your own opinions, please state that they are your opinions. I would be more inclined to pay closer attention if the citations were accurately represented. Good night.

[slimjamm]

This statement of Joseph's also gives some deep insight on the topic, "Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator."

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 190

A few quotes from one of Joseph's wives.
"The grand patriarchal economy, with Adam, as a resurrected being, who brought his wife Eve from another world has been very finely elaborated by Brigham from the patriarchal genesis which Joseph conceived."

- Eliza R. Snow, plural wife of Joseph Smith, Women of Mormondom, p. 180

"When Brigham Young proclaimed to the nations that Adam was our Father and God, and Eve, his partner, the Mother of a world-both in a mortal and celestial sense-he made the most important revelation ever oracled to the race since the days of Adam himself.
This grand patriarchal revelation is the very key-stone of the 'New Creation' of the heavens and the earth. It gives new meaning to the whole system of theology-"

- Eliza R. Snow, Women of Mormondom, p. 196

[slimjamm]

I am also familiar with BY's claim that he learned it from Joseph, but I'm not convinced it's true. As for explaining how Adam and Eve had immortal, celestial bodies before and while in Eden, I'm not familiar with that doctrine either, but honestly, it's not something that is important enough for me to study. Feel free to supply references and citations with your posts, though, without mingling your own philosophies. Or at least if you express your own opinions, please state that they are your opinions. I would be more inclined to pay closer attention if the citations were accurately represented. Good night.

It's not my job to convince you it is true. I am just providing you with references showing Joseph did in fact teach this (two other witnesses stating as such). Not as forthright as Brigham, but it is there if you really care to see and understand it. It's interesting how no one finds it "important" to study our first parents. I would challenge you to do so, with a sincere heart and see what spiritual experiences you enjoy.

[Ribble]

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:63

I had a beautiful experience yesterday having had a few days of clear thinking, time, and pondering, our new baby girl having come to our family 2 days previous. While practicing the habit of the Sons of Mosiah in that:

But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God

I was given a beautiful "see things as they really are" revelatory experience, where for quite some time, I was given a glimpse of God's perspective on the flesh, in relationship to this thread, polygamy, and the OT practice of more than one wife, which indeed was and is abominable in God's sight.

The experience is beyond words, but for what I can dictate, I saw the flesh for what it is, and indeed, I was given by the Spirit in this experience to see that it truly profiteth nothing and how barbaric the flesh is. I was given insight into how God sees death, polygamy, sexual sins, etc. as I pondered and prayed in my fasting oft of late desiring to know the Lord and not realizing I was practicing in this beautiful pattern of obtaining the Spirit of Prophecy and of Revelation.

In regards to polygamy, what we do not understand, and something I was blessed with a beautiful vision of just this week, is the way God looks at the flesh and how it is literally like a costume we are wearing upon our spirits, which one day will be perfect (the costume) through Christ - and so it is so important to teach this costume of ours right now in this life to obey our spirits and the Spirit and voice of Christ, as literally the flesh or carnal natural man is powerful when it is put upon our spirit as a costume, and if we feed our costume or adorn it with principles of lust or the carnal natural man, be it polygamy or otherwise, our body will ultimately become a perfected form of what we have consciously trained it to become in this life, which if such is uncleanness or carnality, such will be given their own place in eternity, outside the Kingdom of God where monogamy is strictly the norm.

However, think of it this way for a bit - if we are to be ONE with God and Christ, knowing ourselves as they know us, being in them and them in us, POLYGAMY is an unnecessary distraction and error as if you know all and see all and are one with God and Christ, then it would be sacred and safe to say you know his eternal companion without ever having to know her literally, as you are one, and He is in you and you in Him - and if you are in Him, then what in HELL do you need more than one wife for, being that you are in him and he in you? - Thus giving all who attain to Godhood the most sacred glimpses of all beings to exist, because you are entrusted with all that the father hath (and does he not have a wife?), knowing all, seeing all, being in and through all things. This has nothing to do with sexual relations, but everything to do with sacred glimpse of the very few there be that find themselves with all that the father hath - ALL.

This begs the question, does God need to be anywhere to experience anything in particular with his being omnipresent. Does God need polygamy to be happy? I declare it is an absolutely no! God does not need polygamy in the sense of multiple wives. God is an monogamous God who is in all things and through all things, which makes him have all things, including your and my spouses, they are his, but what a sacred thing to give them to us with the sacred and holy invite many maybe will not attain to, an invite to have all that he has, including being in him and he in you, your eternal companion therefor is also his as he is in her and she in him, but what a beautiful God to not need her for him, as he gives her to you, although he is always in her and her in him, thus completing the highest form of ecstacy (to borrow the word from Elder Scott) our finite minds can't comprehend currently, Love so high and holy that it respects the monogynous eternal marriage of other Gods with whom you share light and knowledge, joy and sorrow, creation and love without ever having to be there physically, just your intelligence given permission to be in Him and He in you - a sacred doctrine I feel very few will be entrusted with, nor will they want it.

If polygamy were of God, then there is no point in existing, as the perfect Gods would acquire all women and cease creating man or giving carnal man a body to compete with the Gods - a doctrine that smells of the Devil to me personally.

I love the plan of our God and eternal father, I know the Spirit of Prophecy is available to all of us, and I am on a trip if you will with it, a trip that many here have erroneously judged as evil and of the Devil, to them I invite you to consider beyond the mental blockage you might be exercising, in that there is much more our father desires to gives us, so don't be stubborn and be content with the manuals and teachings of fellow man, reach deeper, drink deeper and get hte spirit of prophecy, and it will open up the scriptures like they are alive and breathing, principles, statutes and judgements of Christ that are hidden from the world, and only attainable to those who seek them diligently in the right mindset, which right mindset is impossible if one believes polygamy is of God and preaches or condones such despite their not living it currently.

First, I really liked your analogy of the flesh being compared to a costume. It really fits into how Lehi talked about the constant struggle between the natural man (flesh) and the spirit.

Now, when it comes to polygamy and Joseph Smith. I, like many of you, struggled much over this. After prolonged and in depth study, I have NO doubt that Joseph practiced polygamy. Too much evidence in the form of eye-witnesses, journal's, etc. And honestly, doesn't it just make sense that Brigham just continued what was taught to him by Joseph? Brigham was a loyal, faithful follower of the prophet. When the saints left Nauvoo polygamy made the transition with them. It never skipped a beat. Plural wives of Joseph's were just divided up and given to others... primarily Brigham.

Brigham and the other leaders didn't have a problem having sex with their plural wives because they knew that's what Joseph did. It really is that easy.

But maybe polygamy has a higher purpose that you, BrotherofMahonri, missed. That is of a higher, ultimate sacrifice. To show, like Abraham and Issac, that you are willing to do all things that the Lord commands. Also, as you point out, God is in and through all things. We are all more connected than realized. Maybe polygamy is a way to demonstrate this in some way? It is the ultimate sacrifice in coming together as a group and putting off the natural man/woman.

Nonetheless, we are certainly in no condition to live it. Thank goodness! ;)

[Ribble]

Thank you for the welcome! I have followed these message boards for a couple years, but am just now decided its time to start participating in posting.

Yes, so far, that is the only way my family records have show plural marriage.

I just starting family history in the last two years, but in the last year, here are three stories I have come across.

A certain female ancestor from england marries an lds missionary. Goes back to Utah only to discover she was the third wife. Record goes on to say that she resented him until she died for not disclosing he was a polygamist and was too ashamed to return to her family in England after she was duped.

Charles Lowell Walker (recorder of the largest pioneer lds diary) takes a young second wife in his fifties. My great Grandmother was his daughter, and often spoke to my mother of her resentment towards her father and how he made no time for his children or her mother, and her resentment towards plural marriage. Apparently there are other records of his wives feelings online, but mine comes directly from one of his daughters told to my mother.

Another ancestor is asked to give up his newly established home to one of Brigham Young's wives. he give up his home, and then later leaves the church because of being compelled to do so. He was asked on 3 different occasions I believe before submitting.

There are women like Eliza R. Snow, who have positive things to say, but there are also women like my ancestors and Emma Smith...who couldn't even rationalize it....were they just chopped liver? Besides the current churched has denounced plenty of things that Brigham young taught as false doctrine over the years....it took them decades to denounce the Adam-God theory, whose to say they won't denounce this???

TrueIntent, I appreciate you sharing this with us. I have been curious as to how often plural marriage took place on some of these early foreign missions. You have married missionaries that are accustomed to have regular intercourse with their wives, called on to leave said wives for months or years at a time. I can't imagine the ongoing, constant temptations? Once that motor is turned on it is nearly impossible to shut down.

I think that finding wives overseas was much more common among these missionaries than we realize.

[Tony]

Adam God Doctrine is not the same thing as, Adam God Theory. Joseph, Brigham, and many other leaders taught Adam God Doctrine, not theory.

Sorry I am not an expert on Adam God Theory/doctrine etc, my point is, decades later leadership came out and declared that Adam was not God, the teaching false, and that it should not be taught any longer....isn't that correct? My question to you would be, if what was taught, should no longer be taught, and there are many more examples of this....word of wisdom, for example, was treated as a guideline. Apparently the church had wine vineyards??? And yet, drinking wine today would get your temple recommend declined, why is there such strict adherence to all the teachings surrounding plural marriage, when plural marriage today gets you excommunicated. It appears to me, that the church has evolved, changed, and at times revoked former ideas and practices, and yet with plural marriage---the argument is that it will never be changed???....I am looking for a compelling argument, because in all my research...I can't find one. And to date, the most compelling arguments for me have been on the side that plural marriage was and is false. (in addition to the awful feeling I always got when I prayed about it.) My heart and mind does not offer a confirmation...and isn't that the way we are taught we will receive a confirmation about something?

Joseph Fielding Smith, the prophet from 1970 to July 1972, put forth a clear perspective on the alleged Adam-God theory. You can find all of this in volume 1 of Doctrines of Salvation.

SOURCE OF ADAM-GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted--in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed!--as having said: "Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the God whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Further, they could see that President Young declared that Adam helped to make the earth. If he helped then he was subordinate to someone who was superior. In another paragraph in that same discourse, President Young said: "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael." Here he places Adam, or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned, and this President Young understood perfectly. We believe that Adam, known as Michael, had authority in the heavens before the world was framed. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son and was subject to their direction as the scriptures plainly indicate.

STATUS OF ADAM KNOWN BY BRIGHAM YOUNG. From these passages President Brigham Young could very properly say that we are subject to Adam; that he rules over his posterity, and he gives us commandments, even as he receives commandments from Jesus Christ, who directs him in his ministry and will do so to the latest day of time. And this does not detract anything from the power, greatness, and glory of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

Men who harp upon this saying in the discourse of President Brigham Young should know just as well as they know anything -- for it has come to their attention hundreds of times -- that Brigham Young did not confuse Adam with Jesus Christ or the Father whom he worshipped.

There is a volume published containing the saying of President Brigham Young in which his doctrine concerning the Father and the Son, and Adam's relationship to them is clearly declared in many pages. But when men desire to malign and misrepresent, such things count for nothing.

This is from one of the discourses of Brigham Young: "We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of." Now, if he believed what some people like to interpret him as saying, then he could not say such a thing as that!

Again he said: "The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" This certainly does not sound like the interpretations, erroneously credited to him, give his views in relation to the Father and the Son and Adam whom God created!

[Fiannan]

Monogamy is great for the US economy. It increases divorce, encourages stress which enables people to get prescriptions for drugs, encourages immorality...what could be better for a thriving economy?

Interesting theory. I don't know if we should make personal moral decisions based on whether it's good for the economy or not. But that's just me.

Encourages stress? What stress would that be? The stress of being monogamous? Well by all means. Let's all reduce all of our stress by giving in to the temptation that resisting is causing us all that stress.

Encourages immorality? How does that one work?

It's actually probably adultery that increases divorce. Not monogamy. Which, like it or not, is what polygamy is: adultery sanctioned by its victims.

Well...

“This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans…”

- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 195

“Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 128

Today we see the effects of delayed marriage and even people seeing marriage optional. We have social decay. Women are given the drive to reproduce and when that instinct is thwarted it will result in immorality as no woman with a healthy libido can be expected to be celibate her whole life. Also, women are far more communal in nature which is to be expected if one is to create and sustain a family. Males are more individualistic and more of them are perfectly happy to forgo reproduction than women are. Polygamy at least gives women options and thus if even a few percent of the US population of women were living the principle there would be less available women for the men, and nowadays women, to see as available sexual partners.

[TrueIntent]

Adam God Doctrine is not the same thing as, Adam God Theory. Joseph, Brigham, and many other leaders taught Adam God Doctrine, not theory.

Sorry I am not an expert on Adam God Theory/doctrine etc, my point is, decades later leadership came out and declared that Adam was not God, the teaching false, and that it should not be taught any longer....isn't that correct? My question to you would be, if what was taught, should no longer be taught, and there are many more examples of this....word of wisdom, for example, was treated as a guideline. Apparently the church had wine vineyards??? And yet, drinking wine today would get your temple recommend declined, why is there such strict adherence to all the teachings surrounding plural marriage, when plural marriage today gets you excommunicated. It appears to me, that the church has evolved, changed, and at times revoked former ideas and practices, and yet with plural marriage---the argument is that it will never be changed???....I am looking for a compelling argument, because in all my research...I can't find one. And to date, the most compelling arguments for me have been on the side that plural marriage was and is false. (in addition to the awful feeling I always got when I prayed about it.) My heart and mind does not offer a confirmation...and isn't that the way we are taught we will receive a confirmation about something?

Joseph Fielding Smith, the prophet from 1970 to July 1972, put forth a clear perspective on the alleged Adam-God theory. You can find all of this in volume 1 of Doctrines of Salvation.

SOURCE OF ADAM-GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted--in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed!--as having said: "Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the God whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Further, they could see that President Young declared that Adam helped to make the earth. If he helped then he was subordinate to someone who was superior. In another paragraph in that same discourse, President Young said: "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael." Here he places Adam, or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned, and this President Young understood perfectly. We believe that Adam, known as Michael, had authority in the heavens before the world was framed. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son and was subject to their direction as the scriptures plainly indicate.

STATUS OF ADAM KNOWN BY BRIGHAM YOUNG. From these passages President Brigham Young could very properly say that we are subject to Adam; that he rules over his posterity, and he gives us commandments, even as he receives commandments from Jesus Christ, who directs him in his ministry and will do so to the latest day of time. And this does not detract anything from the power, greatness, and glory of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

Men who harp upon this saying in the discourse of President Brigham Young should know just as well as they know anything -- for it has come to their attention hundreds of times -- that Brigham Young did not confuse Adam with Jesus Christ or the Father whom he worshipped.

There is a volume published containing the saying of President Brigham Young in which his doctrine concerning the Father and the Son, and Adam's relationship to them is clearly declared in many pages. But when men desire to malign and misrepresent, such things count for nothing.

This is from one of the discourses of Brigham Young: "We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of." Now, if he believed what some people like to interpret him as saying, then he could not say such a thing as that!

Again he said: "The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" This certainly does not sound like the interpretations, erroneously credited to him, give his views in relation to the Father and the Son and Adam whom God created!

Sorry, I am confused....if BY's teachings were on the money, then why did we as a church denounce Adam-god. Why do we denounce something, that was never actually wrong, just apparently misunderstood to be wrong??? Why are we caution against it, if Brigham was teaching it correctly.

.."We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77.

[TrueIntent]

Thank you for the welcome! I have followed these message boards for a couple years, but am just now decided its time to start participating in posting.

Yes, so far, that is the only way my family records have show plural marriage.

I just starting family history in the last two years, but in the last year, here are three stories I have come across.

A certain female ancestor from england marries an lds missionary. Goes back to Utah only to discover she was the third wife. Record goes on to say that she resented him until she died for not disclosing he was a polygamist and was too ashamed to return to her family in England after she was duped.

Charles Lowell Walker (recorder of the largest pioneer lds diary) takes a young second wife in his fifties. My great Grandmother was his daughter, and often spoke to my mother of her resentment towards her father and how he made no time for his children or her mother, and her resentment towards plural marriage. Apparently there are other records of his wives feelings online, but mine comes directly from one of his daughters told to my mother.

Another ancestor is asked to give up his newly established home to one of Brigham Young's wives. he give up his home, and then later leaves the church because of being compelled to do so. He was asked on 3 different occasions I believe before submitting.

There are women like Eliza R. Snow, who have positive things to say, but there are also women like my ancestors and Emma Smith...who couldn't even rationalize it....were they just chopped liver? Besides the current churched has denounced plenty of things that Brigham young taught as false doctrine over the years....it took them decades to denounce the Adam-God theory, whose to say they won't denounce this???

TrueIntent, I appreciate you sharing this with us. I have been curious as to how often plural marriage took place on some of these early foreign missions. You have married missionaries that are accustomed to have regular intercourse with their wives, called on to leave said wives for months or years at a time. I can't imagine the ongoing, constant temptations? Once that motor is turned on it is nearly impossible to shut down.

I think that finding wives overseas was much more common among these missionaries than we realize.

You should take a look at this book. https://archive.org/details/tellitallstoryof00sten" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It is the personal account of a women who practiced plural marriage in utah, and later left the church. She makes a lot of claims, one of which is the common practice of men wife-hunting and bringing home women to take as extra wives from their missions in England. It struck a cord when I read the book because her claims matched up with what I had recently found within my own family history.

I think too often in the church we dismiss the personal accounts of people who fell away, but what I have found from the study of my own family history is that these stories were real, and that people really did suffer in the early church because of plural marriage.

Our church teaches that we can't know the good without the bad. Then why have we only heard then positive spin on plural marriage all these years? The whole story matters, and we do a major disservice to the early saints who suffered under these practices, by not acknowledging their stories as well. I am not calling for justice, or accountably.....I just want to know that church of Latter Day Saints of 2015, practices what it preaches, maybe not in the past, but at least in the future. If the saints of the Book of Mormon can go through the pride cycle and be wicked, then righteous, and so on, are we as a latter-day church immune from the pride cycle. ? We need to tell the truth---the whole truth. Since when do we teach that too much truth is a bad thing.

[TrueIntent]

Monogamy is great for the US economy. It increases divorce, encourages stress which enables people to get prescriptions for drugs, encourages immorality...what could be better for a thriving economy?

Interesting theory. I don't know if we should make personal moral decisions based on whether it's good for the economy or not. But that's just me.

Encourages stress? What stress would that be? The stress of being monogamous? Well by all means. Let's all reduce all of our stress by giving in to the temptation that resisting is causing us all that stress.

Encourages immorality? How does that one work?

It's actually probably adultery that increases divorce. Not monogamy. Which, like it or not, is what polygamy is: adultery sanctioned by its victims.

Well...

“This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans…”

- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 195

“Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 128

Today we see the effects of delayed marriage and even people seeing marriage optional. We have social decay. Women are given the drive to reproduce and when that instinct is thwarted it will result in immorality as no woman with a healthy libido can be expected to be celibate her whole life. Also, women are far more communal in nature which is to be expected if one is to create and sustain a family. Males are more individualistic and more of them are perfectly happy to forgo reproduction than women are. Polygamy at least gives women options and thus if even a few percent of the US population of women were living the principle there would be less available women for the men, and nowadays women, to see as available sexual partners.

You and Pratt and BY are totally giving the argument for why gay marriage and sex outside of marriage should be okay. According to your theory, we are all too weak to control ourselves sexually in the long run, so there needs to be a loop hole in place for our weakness...aka plural marriage. The problem with this is....if we can't control ourselves without plural marriage, why do we expect gays or widows, or anyone else to live the law of chastity for the long run......apparently it's not possible to be chaste over extended periods of time. Commandments are designed for the weakest of us, so are hetero males the weakest???

Also, plural marriage only benefits the heterosexual male. I highly doubt BY was satisfying all his wives sexually, however, I bet money he was pretty satisfied. Why would Christ teach laws of chastity if it weren't possible to live them? I guess Christ was just setting us up to fail.
It concerns me that people who claim plural marriage is divine, would use quotes like this to justify the practice. This quote by Pratt and BY is one of the very reasons people question the doctrine all together. Even if I did believe the practice was holy, if those quotes hit the front page of LDS newsroom by mistake, I guarantee the church would be scrambling to condemn them. That's the problem...when our leaders got wrapped up in plural marriage, they started making claims like these.

[Tony]

Sorry I am not an expert on Adam God Theory/doctrine etc, my point is, decades later leadership came out and declared that Adam was not God, the teaching false, and that it should not be taught any longer....isn't that correct? My question to you would be, if what was taught, should no longer be taught, and there are many more examples of this....word of wisdom, for example, was treated as a guideline. Apparently the church had wine vineyards??? And yet, drinking wine today would get your temple recommend declined, why is there such strict adherence to all the teachings surrounding plural marriage, when plural marriage today gets you excommunicated. It appears to me, that the church has evolved, changed, and at times revoked former ideas and practices, and yet with plural marriage---the argument is that it will never be changed???....I am looking for a compelling argument, because in all my research...I can't find one. And to date, the most compelling arguments for me have been on the side that plural marriage was and is false. (in addition to the awful feeling I always got when I prayed about it.) My heart and mind does not offer a confirmation...and isn't that the way we are taught we will receive a confirmation about something?

Joseph Fielding Smith, the prophet from 1970 to July 1972, put forth a clear perspective on the alleged Adam-God theory. You can find all of this in volume 1 of Doctrines of Salvation.

SOURCE OF ADAM-GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted--in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed!--as having said: "Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the God whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Further, they could see that President Young declared that Adam helped to make the earth. If he helped then he was subordinate to someone who was superior. In another paragraph in that same discourse, President Young said: "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael." Here he places Adam, or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned, and this President Young understood perfectly. We believe that Adam, known as Michael, had authority in the heavens before the world was framed. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son and was subject to their direction as the scriptures plainly indicate.

STATUS OF ADAM KNOWN BY BRIGHAM YOUNG. From these passages President Brigham Young could very properly say that we are subject to Adam; that he rules over his posterity, and he gives us commandments, even as he receives commandments from Jesus Christ, who directs him in his ministry and will do so to the latest day of time. And this does not detract anything from the power, greatness, and glory of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

Men who harp upon this saying in the discourse of President Brigham Young should know just as well as they know anything -- for it has come to their attention hundreds of times -- that Brigham Young did not confuse Adam with Jesus Christ or the Father whom he worshipped.

There is a volume published containing the saying of President Brigham Young in which his doctrine concerning the Father and the Son, and Adam's relationship to them is clearly declared in many pages. But when men desire to malign and misrepresent, such things count for nothing.

This is from one of the discourses of Brigham Young: "We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of." Now, if he believed what some people like to interpret him as saying, then he could not say such a thing as that!

Again he said: "The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" This certainly does not sound like the interpretations, erroneously credited to him, give his views in relation to the Father and the Son and Adam whom God created!

Sorry, I am confused....if BY's teachings were on the money, then why did we as a church denounce Adam-god. Why do we denounce something, that was never actually wrong, just apparently misunderstood to be wrong??? Why are we caution against it, if Brigham was teaching it correctly.

.."We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77.

Brigham Young never taught the Adam-God theory. If you read what Joseph Fielding Smith said, it says Brigham Young's sermon was "erroneously transcribed." Joseph Fielding Smith then proves that Brigham Young clearly knew that Adam was not God. That is why President Kimball said the Adam-God theory was "alleged to have been taught." Anyone claiming it was taught is either misinformed or purposely lying in an effort to discredit the Church.

[Tony]

BrotherOfMahonri has linked to 2 blatantly anti-LDS websites. He has 874 posts since joining the forum last month, which is 21.32 posts per day.

One of the two anti-LDS websites he links to is Utah Lighthous Ministry, founded by the infamous anti-LDS couple, Jerald and Sandra Tanner.
He also links to other anti-LDS websites in his posts.

BrotherOfMahonri is on this forum to ridicule and discredit the Church. BrotherOfMahonri should be banned.

[Fiannan]

Also, plural marriage only benefits the heterosexual male. I highly doubt BY was satisfying all his wives sexually, however, I bet money he was pretty satisfied. Why would Christ teach laws of chastity if it weren't possible to live them? I guess Christ was just setting us up to fail.
It concerns me that people who claim plural marriage is divine, would use quotes like this to justify the practice. This quote by Pratt and BY is one of the very reasons people question the doctrine all together. Even if I did believe the practice was holy, if those quotes hit the front page of LDS newsroom by mistake, I guarantee the church would be scrambling to condemn them. That's the problem...when our leaders got wrapped up in plural marriage, they started making claims like these.

And what if the Parable of the Talents also applies to marriage, family and bringing forth children? It not only has an economic underpinning.

Maybe the reason many LDS today would wet their collective pants if the quotes I used were to be sent out by mistake to the general membership is because we are so far away from where the Bible says we should be that it strikes many people as contrary to their core beliefs. What is weird is if I had a group of young LDS adults in a 400-level psychology course dealing with evolutionary psychology they would totally see the accuracy of Orson Pratt and Brigham Young's statements. The problem many people have is when you place biological/sociological/psychological truths in a religious context they lose their minds.

As for what science tends to show for humans I have said before that size differentials for genetically similar opposite-sex humans imply we are designed for family units of one male and two or three females. Note that Jakob had four wives and this would probably be the desirable limit -- kinda what we see on "Sister Wives" and what is taught by Islam. I am not sure how satisfied Brigham Young's wives were but in those days didn't most middle class women go to their female midwife or male doctor if they needed additional care in that department? Don't believe me? Look up the treatment for "hysteria" in the 19th Century.

[Fiannan]

BrotherOfMahonri has linked to 2 blatantly anti-LDS websites. He has 874 posts since joining the forum last month, which is 21.32 posts per day.

One of the two anti-LDS websites he links to is Utah Lighthous Ministry, founded by the infamous anti-LDS couple, Jerald and Sandra Tanner.
He also links to other anti-LDS websites in his posts.

BrotherOfMahonri is on this forum to ridicule and discredit the Church. BrotherOfMahonri should be banned.

And his IP address as well.

I have no problem debating genuine and sincere people like KMC but not people that are here to merely tear down the faith. :-w

[inho]

BrotherOfMahonri has linked to 2 blatantly anti-LDS websites. He has 874 posts since joining the forum last month, which is 21.32 posts per day.

One of the two anti-LDS websites he links to is Utah Lighthous Ministry, founded by the infamous anti-LDS couple, Jerald and Sandra Tanner.
He also links to other anti-LDS websites in his posts.

BrotherOfMahonri is on this forum to ridicule and discredit the Church. BrotherOfMahonri should be banned.

I don't like much of what BrotherOfMahonri writes, but I don't like false accusations either. I somehow missed the link to the other anti-LDS website. The link to Tanner's page leads to page where one can find transcription of few pages from History of the Church. If one refuse to read HC from an antimormon site, the same content can be found from this BYU site: https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/6/20.html#HOC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BrotherOfMahonri]

BrotherOfMahonri has linked to 2 blatantly anti-LDS websites. He has 874 posts since joining the forum last month, which is 21.32 posts per day.

One of the two anti-LDS websites he links to is Utah Lighthous Ministry, founded by the infamous anti-LDS couple, Jerald and Sandra Tanner.
He also links to other anti-LDS websites in his posts.

BrotherOfMahonri is on this forum to ridicule and discredit the Church. BrotherOfMahonri should be banned.

What shall I say to such false accusations, "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing heresy, and being anti, when I can only find revelation, prophesy, and sharing of the doctrines, statutes, and judgements of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior".

BrotherOfMahonri is on this forum to ridicule and discredit the Church.

If anyone should be banned brother Tony, it is people who make false affidavids and statements like this ^^^ when they took no thought but to react to something that was NOT IN THE MANUAL!

BrotherOfMahonri has linked to 2 blatantly anti-LDS websites. He has 874 posts since joining the forum last month, which is 21.32 posts per day.

If you had any sensativity or unfeigned love towards your fellow man (2nd greatest commandment), you would see I have been on this LDSFF site much longer as BalaamDoctrineLDS which I publicly let everyone know of when I switched usernames, and where was the mighty Tony to answer my questions when I came on this forum, to help aid this "lost sheep" back to your fold?

And my 874 posts, did you read any of them? Were they anti Christ in any way shape or form? or did you do as many other fearful TBMs do in lumping me into the fearful category of Korihor or anti Christs in an instant or two because I did not fit into your God-like view of what a normal latter day saint should look, act, and be like?

Wo unto any of us who claim to be Christian and who fear critical thinking and asking questions and stating what the Spirit (whatever spirit you claim to have) declares unto you. Wo unto any of us who whimsically calls good evil and evil good when they took no thought to consider, even prayerfully what a sincere soul is sharing, seeking, asking or claiming.

[BrotherOfMahonri]

Thanks for the respectful and thoughtful reply. However, your following statement proves my point entirely if you didn't catch it...

After prolonged and in depth study, I have NO doubt that Joseph practiced polygamy. Too much evidence in the form of eye-witnesses, journal's, etc.

That's my entire point Ribble...

If you are going to state facts and evidence then let me do the same. 75% of eye witnesses were wrong (according to scientific studies)! Add the facts that one is dead, and all the statements, journals, affidavits, etc. are influenced outside and after the benefit of person involved being alive to counter the numerous claims with regards to his polygamous marriages, and you are about 99% wrong with eye-witness accounts, journals and affidavits or not.

That's my point. Only God can clarify truth for each of us. He is the only reliable source. No amount of scholarly work, argument, debate can definitively show the truth about this matter of polygamy, and I believe God allowed it to be setup that way, because that gives us the OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE FAITH in HIM and to turn to him for truth (unless we do as you alluded to and turn to the works of men, scholars, and such).

[BrotherOfMahonri]

BrotherOfMahonri has linked to 2 blatantly anti-LDS websites. He has 874 posts since joining the forum last month, which is 21.32 posts per day.

One of the two anti-LDS websites he links to is Utah Lighthous Ministry, founded by the infamous anti-LDS couple, Jerald and Sandra Tanner.
He also links to other anti-LDS websites in his posts.

BrotherOfMahonri is on this forum to ridicule and discredit the Church. BrotherOfMahonri should be banned.

Oh and one last thing this morning brother Tony, something you have posted and believe in (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=37629&p=578362#p578362" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ), and an invite to practice it!

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

Follow that statute above and you will be safe with myself and any other sincere member of the church and body of Christ. An invite to cease contending for institutions of man and contend for the gospel of Jesus Christ and then as we become more like him the institutions we influence can change to be more of His mind and will.

[BrotherOfMahonri]

KMCopeland, I myself have been having a difficult time with the knowledge that some of our leaders were not who we have been taught they are. I have recently come to this conclusion myself after my sister left the church after reading the church essays, and sadly, I told her that her accusations were false doctrine, and then I finally read the essays myself and researched them and realized she was just quoting the essays. I am struggling for the first time in my life. Not with the fact that people aren't perfect, but with the fact that our early church prophets were living in a way that was deceptive, and in direct conflict with how the Book of Mormon prophets lived while they acted as prophets. Book of Mormon Prophets were courageous, honest, and men without guile....not anything like what I have read in history about early church leaders (for almost up until the early 1900's the leaders struggled with not just plural marriage, but honesty, and word of wisdom as well.) Which leads me to struggle with current leadership, because they have left this information out of our manuals and websites, until recently, and now publish it without so much as explaining how it fits into what the narrative of what we have been taught to believe. Your C.S. Lewis quote sums up how I feel about turning a blind eye to this....But my question to you is....how does knowing all this affect your testimony? How are you able to denounce Plural marriage, while our current leadership does not, and yet still feel like you are in harmony with the church? I feel exactly like you do about plural marriage, but carrying quite a bit of guilt for finally taking a stand on the issue. I don't plan to leave the church, but now everything I have been taught I seem to be questioning in my mind. This is an open question to everyone who is active, and has a knowledge that plural marriage is not a true doctrine...how do you maintain your testimony? I now can say I have so much empathy for people who are struggling and leaving the church. I have always been a diehard...served as a temple worker, accepted every calling with enthusiasm, and done everything I have been asked to do, but since reading church history, how does one remain a diehard, while questioning leadership? I am struggling.

For what it is worth, thank you for your openness and sincerity, I am so grateful for committed saints like you who love the Lord and his restored gospel (as is obvious in the spirit I feel from this post of yours). An invite to seek out the Lord's help in this matter, and fear not when the Spirit directs you to consider a view, perspective, document, etc. that is not in an approved LDS manual (not speaking of anti-sites whatsoever, as there are plenty of active saints just like you who blog and have found plenty of materials that I have been accused of being anti materials when they came from the church's own archives.

welcome and thanks for sharing and opening up. This is not a whimsical thing for us, but serious and it is not an easy journey so far to say the least, in part not an easy journey at the hands of many who are quite oppressive in their responses (mostly TBMs), rather than maybe being heavenly inspired for which I am grateful to a few here who are quite inspired, thoughtful and loving despite disagreeing - which has more weight on the heart than any argument or scholarly work - as love can be felt no matter what side one is on, and with those few people where love is felt from, I tend to find with them the most truth is discovered.

[BrotherOfMahonri]

Thank you for your insights, i've enjoyed the positive and critical yet respectful approach, which is lacking in part by many others on this forum.

I am curious as to what you think about the following however:

I agree completely Brigham advanced that doctrine. But he also stated that He was first taught the doctrine from Joseph.

Polygamy was established doctrinally by Brigham after Joseph's death, per Joseph supposedly having revealed it, but only having it come out 8 years after his death officially with a copy of the revelation which Brigham had had for that time.

A Hypothetical
What if Holland or Oaks or Pres. Monson at that, or anyone at that in the brethren really wanted to practice anew polygamy, and 8 years after the passing of President Hinkley, having already taken on multiple wives, they came out stating that they have a paper given them with a revelation from President Hinkley that God's desire is to institute plural wives again in order to be saved - and then we start getting reports of all these women stating they were married to Hinkley, and they sign affidavits (after he had passed of course) stating such, but these women then mostly are married to other polygamous men?

How likely would the membership believe such a claim?
Would members simply follow because they are the brethren, or would members seek personal revelation of the Lord in the matter?

I think you catch my point here, Brigham can state anything he wanted to and pin Joseph to it, because Joseph was dead. We wish he was 100% honest and forthright and righteous, in that the Lord gave him all his thoughts and ideas, but so far, it has been proven at least in a few matters, that Brigham was just being brigham in certain cases (Adam God, Blacks and Priesthood, etc.), so if we were left to reputation, he fails in my view with polygamy stating Joseph established it. However, again, as this thread points out, it comes down to a challenge to us all, to seek God, the divine source of all truth, and ask him on the matter after having studied it out (both sides, history, documents, facts, etc.) and pondered and made a decision to then ask God if it be right.

[slimjamm]

To be fair, the quote of mine you used above was referring to Brigham stating it was Joseph's doctrine. Meaning the Adam-God doctrine. Also to be fair, I do believe that Joseph did receive and first taught the principle of plural marriage.

[sandman45]

When Joseph received a revelation in D&C

D&C 27:11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

D&C116: 1 Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

D&C 78
16 Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life.

and when he said this..

the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. … The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.” 23

According to the Jews... The Ancient of Days is another name for God.. and is used in the sense of God being eternal.

Some Christians believe it is Jesus Christ..

Other Christians believe it is God the Father..

Buddhism. the term ancient of days is referred to the creator God Brahma.

if you read Daniel Chapter 7.. its obvious who it is..

9 ¶I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

compare revelations 5:11 and 11:18 and 20:12

the following come from The Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith.. this is also in the Teachings of the presidents of the church manual the joseph smith manual.

The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency,
and held the keys of it from generation to generation.
He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis 1:26, 27, 28.8
He had dominion given him over every living creature.
He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures.
Then to Noah, who is Gabriel: he stands next in
authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all
living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then
in heaven.14

(wait.. Adam obtained the priesthood keys in the Creation before the world was formed...hmm)

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will
to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven
whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam’s authority.

The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity.
Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state,
from eternity. Our Savior speaks of children and says, Their angels always stand before my Father.
The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them.
He (Adam) is the head,
and was told to multiply.
The keys were first given to him,
and by him to others. He will
have to give an account of his stewardship,
and they to him.

(stewardship)

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the
“Ancient of Days,” or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of
whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only
by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of
ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed,
and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from
henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation
of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from
Christ to the end of the dispensations that are to be revealed. “Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to
His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself; that in the dispensation of the fullness of
times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are
on earth; even in Him.” (Ephesians 1:9-10.)

This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation,
and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his Presidency
and authority from the Lord, but cannot receive a fullness until Christ shall present the Kingdom
to the Father, which shall be at the end of the last dispensation.

Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth,
and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to
Abraham’s record, are called
God the first, the Creator;
God the second, the Redeemer;
and God the third, the witness or Testator

SO when Joseph came out and said Adam was the Ancient of Days.. people of that era believed the "Ancient of Days" to be "God the Father"..
and people believed that the "Father of All" was "God the Father"..

see

Ephesians 4:
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

So When Brigham said this it shouldn't have been a surprise because Joseph is the one who announce who the "Ancient of Days" was and who the "Father of All" was.

In my Opinion ;) from these verses and revelations Joseph pretty much stated what Brigham stated just more subtly.

which makes me feel this piece of information just may be true..

Minutes of Meeting, at Historian's Office; Great Salt Lake City; 7 P.M. April 4, 1860 "It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God &c When in Luke Johnson's".

We should talk about Joseph saying Adam was the Ancient of Days and "Father of ALL" instead of Brigham Young saying Adam was a God.

[Fiannan]

Polygamy might save a lot of marriage, not destroy them. Biologically a man can reproduce decades after a wife of the same age is unable to do so. Why did God set it up that way? In China is used to be that when a wife could no longer have children she would procure a young woman and arrange that her husband take her as a second wife so as to produce more family -- and in ancient China family meant power. Of course this was mainly something that wealthier people could take part in.

Now consider that a man generally displays behavior either called "male menopause" or "mid-life crisis" not based on his age but the age of his wife. Read this over:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... ife-crisis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A lot of upper-class men, or alpha males with social standing, wind up meeting women 20 o4 30 years younger than them and in many cases (seen it even in our religion) the man leaves his 40 or 50 something wife for the 20 or 30 something "trophy" wife. Is this wired into our genes? I would also note that research suggests that women find men who are married or with a woman in a relationship FAR more attractive and will find themselves flirting with these men not because they are off limits but because they want that man - especially if he has proven himself as a good father. Are young women wired to seek men who have proven themselves?

Polygamy would solve this in more ways than one. Maybe there would be far less women in their 40s or 50s being left by husbands if polygamy was an option. If anything polygamy helps women far more than men.

[A Random Phrase]

Tony, if you have a problem with one of BrotherOfMahonri's posts, you should report it, not blast him on the forum.

Sometimes, one can only find something on an antiMormon site. Maybe they don't know where else to find it. You could be useful and do a search when you come across something like this. If you could find it on FAIR or an LDS-friendly site, you could post it with a comment, like inho did, posting a link to the same info from a BYU site. That way, you are helping solve the problem instead of becoming part of the problem.