If God ended polygamy in 1890, but members(leaders) didn't stop..

[Zathura]

If polygamy was officially commanded by God to cease in 1890, but it apparently continued secretly for 10 or so more years at least, by

General Authorities included, then wouldn't that mean they were breaking God's commandments? In those 10+ years after the manifesto, it wouldn't be any different than me grabbing 3 or 4 wives tomorrow. SO today, If I would be excommunicated for polygamy today, what does that say about church members, including general authorities who continued it during those 10+ years, even when God had apparently officially commanded it to stop?

Who can explain this?
If the General Authorities at that time had an understanding, or even better, a KNOWLEDGE (Since they ALL are apparently PSR's) that God had commanded his people to cease polygamy and that as of 1890, polygamy became something that you can be excommunicated for, why would certain leaders and other members continue this practice?

As Rewcox LOVES to state, polygamy isn't a law now, but it was back then. Using Rewcox's statement, as of 1890, you could not practice polygamy. As of 1890, if you practiced it, it was grounds for excommunication, and your children could be baptized without disavowing the practice.
If I practiced polygamy today, and advocated it, how would I be received here? How would I be received in the church?
I wouldn't be received well at all.
Well, following the manifesto, it was still practiced in secret.

Considering the actions of our Leaders(PSR's) I see 2 options.

1. Polygamy(The form of it that was practiced in the church) is of God, but God didn't actually revoke it, the church just did the manifesto to satisfy the government, and the General Authorities understood this, and for this reason they continued in secret because it was God's will.
Otherwise, the leaders that continued it in secret were sinning horribly, because it was a practice that God apparently no longer approved of.

2. Polygamy(The form of it that was practiced in the church) was never commanded by God, and the church sent out the manifesto to satisfy the government, and they continued practicing it in secret because the General Authorities had never been told by God to ever start this practice, or stop it. Rather than give up their women, they attempted to keep them in secret. Instead of shedding a man-made tradition, they attempted to continue it.

[Zathura]

P.S

I want reasonable answers.
Persuade me.

I don't want to hear blanket statements like.

"If Joseph Smith was a true prophet then Brigham Young is too"
or "God wouldn't work through sinful men"

reason with me. My mind is open to anything.

[Melissa]

Well, they obviously were doing their own will. That is clear.

As far as their thinking, maybe they felt God still approved but they had to "openly" say they weren't living it so they could gain statehood. Maybe they were manipulated the system and trying to fool the gov.

[zionminded]

Here is the honest answer you're looking for, you won't get from your Bishop or SP.

I don't think polygamy was entirely granted to man to be practiced to the degree it was, so in my view, stopping it was a good move and likely heaven endorsed to end it. While its very well known the manifesto was politically motivated, I think God was saying to himself "Yeah this is a good move, glad you figured it out, even if it's for the wrong reason!".

And so, those who practiced it after the manifesto may have been in violation of church "commandments", I don't think they were sinners in gods eyes, because I think they were doing the best they could with what they had. I think this largely because it must have been VERY hard for these families to break it up. Not only had it become a religious thing (nearly a requirement to get to heaven), but they had families, and traditions.

The manifesto was as big of an event as the death of Joseph Smith. It was a major turning point for the church. It was VERY, hard for church leaders to do a 1-80 on that topic. Looking back it literally fractured the church. The church had to be firm, but soft. Too firm, the church is destroyed. Too soft, and the federal government would wreak havoc on the Mormons. It was as they say, a rock and a hard place.

The situations they had (some practicing in secret for a few years), in my opinion was a pretty decent compromise. Many were excommunicated (they took the fall publicly). And some were allowed to practice it, because to tear apart families and other traditions may have been worse.

So in short I don't blame them, and I don't think Christ will.

We DO see some similarities between a much more grown up church today. I think the church is still learning however, and I think they're doing the best they can because not only are there are few things I think the church has "wrong", I trust that these men and women will figure it out, in a way that won't fracture the church.

My testimony is solid regardless of this position. Its simply a different way to see it.

[Lizzy60]

It wasn't just that they didn't want to tear apart existing polygamous families, but there were a considerable number of new polygamous marriages performed for a number of years after the 1890 Manifesto. These marriages were done for the highest leaders in the Church, not by renegades. I'll post some links tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. D. Michael Quinn wrote a paper on this, after being allowed access to Church Archives.

[zionminded]

It wasn't just that they didn't want to tear apart existing polygamous families, but there were a considerable number of new polygamous marriages performed for a number of years after the 1890 Manifesto. These marriages were done for the highest leaders in the Church, not by renegades. I'll post some links tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. D. Michael Quinn wrote a paper on this, after being allowed access to Church Archives.

That's true. To go from "you must enter into polygamy to get to heaven" (which was not correct) to it's a sin, was SOOOOOO much of a 1-80, it was hard for church leaders that wanted to follow in the footsteps of BY, JT and others, to make that change. In other words the social momentum of polygamy in the LDS culture at the time, couldn't be turned off that sharply. It also was something they felt they might "get away with for a short time", and wouldn't have to give it entirely up. I think they honestly suffering from what we can cognitive dissidence in the psychological arena.

Anti Mormon's will paint LDS leaders at the time as sex craved, but it wasn't that. These Men loved their wives and were good men (for the most part), and they honestly saw their role as more like God if they took other wives, as making them better men like the men before them.

But as time went on, it clearly couldn't happen even in private.

[slimjamm]

You should read, Apostles on trial by Drew Briney. You'll then see there was no real revelation to stop it in 1890. Technically it's still alive and well in the Church, even among the brethren.

[zionminded]

You should read, Apostles on trial by Drew Briney. You'll then see there was no real revelation to stop it in 1890. Technically it's still alive and well in the Church, even among the brethren.

I'm not aware of any current polygamy being practiced in the church, do you have proof of this, or is this anti-mormon conjecture?

(Yes the manifesto wasn't revelation, it was political pressure)

[Sarah]

Something similar happened when the Word of Wisdom was introduced. People were used to drinking coffee, tea, and wine, and smoking tobacco, and for a time, there was some leeway as to whether or not you could be disqualified from certain blessings (like temple attendance.) The members were also using wine as part of the sacrament, so another example of a big 180. The Lord gave a similar reason for introducing the Word of Wisdom as he did for rescinding plural marriage. For the first he stated it was because of conspiring men. Obviously we can see how that is true. Men have done all they could to make tobacco, alcohol and hot drinks attractive, as addictive as possible, and readily available. This revelation was given as WISDOM for the saints to follow.
Plural marriage was restricted now because of conspiring men who would bring about the downfall of the Church. The Lord respects man's agency above all else, so if the people of the land won't tolerate it, He is not going to force them to tolerate it. He made that clear by revealing what would happen to the Church if they continued to practice plural marriage.

I don't know what all the specific policies were when it was now against Church law, but I have to imagine that at first it was a restriction on performing additional plural marriages to the general members. If the spirit (of the Lord) directed the brethren to seal two people to together, what does it matter? The Lords ways are higher than man's. Did God want plural marriage to continue with all members? I'll admit that it is a possibility that He didn't want it to continue indefinitely because he knew a majority of future members would not be worthy to live it, so perhaps it really was meant to be taken away not only because of political pressure, but because it no longer was needed to fulfill a purpose.

In sec. 132 the Lord gives many conditions regarding HIS LAW and it is obvious to me that there are some different layers. After giving the part of the law regarding the taking of virgins, he specifically says that it's purpose is to raise seed unto him. So, at least in my opinion, when Joseph was entering into plural marriages, the purpose really was to fulfill the law, and introduce it to select individuals who were foreordained to bring the whole thing about. When it was practiced in Utah, and it really was just the taking on of virgins or widows, it clearly resulted in bringing about God's purpose to raise up a righteous seed. I am one of those members who claim an ancestor who sacrificed to bring forth children in the Lord's Kingdom. Children of God who would be given a chance at hearing the gospel and being sealed into a family.

[Zathura]

You should read, Apostles on trial by Drew Briney. You'll then see there was no real revelation to stop it in 1890. Technically it's still alive and well in the Church, even among the brethren.

I've read essays that explain that there wasn't a real revelation on this. I've also seen claims that there also was no real revelation when black's received the priesthood, but that's another topic.

As far as I know, it's alive in well in that if a man's wife dies, he can remarry. This is the one time Joseph Smith straight up said that a man can marry a second woman, IF his first one is deceased.

[Zathura]

Did God want plural marriage to continue with all members? I'll admit that it is a possibility that He didn't want it to continue indefinitely because he knew a majority of future members would not be worthy to live it, so perhaps it really was meant to be taken away not only because of political pressure, but because it no longer was needed to fulfill a purpose.

.

I accept this could be a possibility also.

[Fiannan]

Originally when the Manifesto was issued wasn't it sort of considered tongue-in-cheek; sort of a way to get the feds off the back of the Church and eventually it was adopted a few decades later as an actual rule?

[Dash jones]

There is another possibility.

hen reading LDS history and LDS theology I think it is clear Joseph was the originator of polygamy (as per LDS traditions, that would have been through Revelation). I think he did NOT present it at first due to the SAME problems we see today.

When Polygamy was originally practiced, it was in the Old Testament, and during that time, Marriage was seen completely DIFFERENT than how it is today. Romantic love was not seen as we see it. Romantic love was more of the type of love one has for their brother to lay it down to save their brother. Marriage was a family thing. It involved your family. Once you were married you WERE family. Marriage meant Loyalty to that family. For a Wife that meant absolute loyalty to the Husband, regardless of if he was not completely loyal to you (a theme that actually is represented repeatedly in Greek literature such as the Odyssey). The Hebrews were an oddity in that they practiced a more chaste fidelity in marriage which also required the husbands to be more loyal to their wives...however we see that they practiced polygamy at times (also a note, Though Saul, David, and Soloman were the Kings of Israel, they were NOT the leaders of the Lord's people or his religious affairs, that lay on his prophets such as Samuel and Nathan. Most bible scholars would probably conclude that they were righteous. This is brought out especially in regards to Samuel who became the leader because the hereditary heirs to this position were NOT righteous).

When men chased after women for reasons other than family causes or other reasons that have NOTHING to do with love in truth, it was normally seen as being caused by what we today would call lust.

Lust was a tale that would launch a thousand ships however, and much was written about beauty in that regard. Romantic love however, was a foreign concept.

We see romantic love come about several hundred years ago. In this, we see people that are devoted to each other NOT because they have married and hence are family (and when we say family loyalty, in the ancient world, that really was loyalty. In Rome, if you didn't obey your father, or do what he wanted, he had the right to execute you on the spot), but because of this concept of love for each other that is DIFFERENT than the love that you would have towards another family member or loyalty you have for your husband due to the bonds of marriage.

It is this idea that people can develop this relationship built upon love that brings them together for the rest of their lives. That this love makes it so that they only have eyes for each other and ONLY for the other.

This concept is directly counter to that of the concept of the ancient world and why they were married as well as why they had LOYALTY to each other. This concept of love bringing your one and only true love to you is something that would make an idea like polygamy as a very revolting idea.

So, Joseph trying to present this to people would probably have ended up with 50% or more of the Saints leaving on the spot and calling for his execution. Brigham Young actually LOST many saints for the same reason, though he wasn't executed on the spot.

Today, if you were to proclaim polygamy was again in effect (And perhaps this is a reason it hasn't been pushed forward again, the weakness of the LDS in their faith simply aren't humble enough or strong enough in belief towards their leaders to accept it) you'd probably lose over 50% of the church membership overnight. The idea of polygamy is directly counter to the modern idea of Romance and Romantic love. The idea that you have a "true Love" or a "one and only" don't play well with the idea of multiple spouses.

THIS is the reason Joseph kept it behind the scenes. Those who held this notion of romantic love as the ideal would be bound to be scandalized. What is worse, is considering their current troubles, the public around them would have been scandalized and made the reasons to condemn the Mormons even MORE so!

You can see that same spirit today. It's in the church, it's on these boards. How many Mormons here can't believe Joseph Smith was the originator of Polygamy. How many here think Brigham Young made it up without revelation? How many here would be scandalized if it was brought into the LDS church today?

That same attitude was prevalent in Joseph's Day. It was abundantly clear that if it was revealed publically in Missouri, and East of the Rockies...not only would they have the Mobs, that extermination order wouldn't have just been from Missouri, it may have been a Federal Mandate!

In this instance, it would not be unusual for Joseph Smith to say one thing with one hand, but do another with the other. For example, in the past, Abraham had told half truths to Pharaoh. Others had mandated deception or subterfuge in logic to those in the world (Ehud, Esther, David in hiding, etc). Even the Book of Mormon have it where at times they use deception in order to accomplish their purposes (Nephi). In truth, if one truly analyzes the words, it wasn't even a lie, as it applied to the Saints at large and not specific exceptions that may or may not have existed.

In this light, that the leadership would take polygamy into hiding once again, where one hand did what the other did not, would not be surprising. Relegating it back to the same situation as it was at first, where certain people could practice polygamy, but for the church at large, it would not be, due to the acceptance of the world...seems to be similar to the same that would have beleaguered Joseph.

Thus, in keeping with how Joseph Smith apparently had polygamy being practiced during his time, for the appearances to the world, it appears that they merely scaled it back to that type of practice, rather then the open practice that was done during Brigham Young and John Taylor's time.

Now, obviously, with the attitudes here towards the idea that Joseph Smith could not have possibly been the one that originated Polygamy, I'll offer another optional idea in a following post...however, I should note, in my reading of the histories and the way Joseph phrased his objections to polygamy, it fits a historical perspective that he WAS the one that was the originator, but was not revealing it to the world at large but only to a few select individuals. Overall, it was still the measure of the main body of the LDS church at that time to disavow any connection to polygamy, as much doctrinally for them, as it was in context of the mutual feeling of the rest of the public and society at large with which the members of the church had to deal with.

That this was the same idea that relegated back in Wilford Woodruff's day...would not surprise me. Yet, as I said, there is another (and yes, lengthy) answer to this which could have occurred instead.

[Dash jones]

In the early 20th century (1900s) a case came up in regards to Reed Smoot. In it, old charges came out regarding polygamy and that the LDS church was not as strongly preventing it as they should have been. This led to a Second Manifesto. Joseph F. Smith declared that any officer of the church that did a plural marriage, as well as anyone participating it would be excommunicated. Two members of the twelve did NOT agree with the original Manifesto and in thus regards did not agree with the Second one either.

They were excommunicated.

This was over a DECADE after the first Manifesto.

At first there was NOT a unanimous acceptance of the second Manifesto. AFTER these events, there was a unanimous acceptance.

To me this implies that there might not have been a unanimous acceptance of the First Manifesto either. It is possible Wilford Woodruff felt he had revelation and as Prophet had this as an official command. It is also possible that there were those who were NOT the prophet that disagreed with this. None of these would become Prophet most likely (Lorenzo Snow Backed the Manifesto as per the D&C, and Joseph F. Smith was the one who declared the Second Manifesto).

In that light, it is possible that theses who did not agree thought instead to go back toward the practice of how Joseph Smith did it originally. Now it is NOT required that Joseph Smith actually DID this or was the originator, ONLY that they FELT that this was how it occurred and how it happened (and that's the out for those of you who do NOT believe Joseph was the originator of Polygamy). It was many decades after his death, and most of them did NOT have an in depth personal relationship with Joseph, especially those who were of the younger apostles (so not Wilford Or Lorenzo, or even Joseph F. Smith...those who were not these men or who had not been as closely related?).

In this light, they could have continued with their support of polygamy in their own way, in secret. Wilford may have had rumors and heard rumors, or suspected, but did not have the absolute evidence to convict them, or perhaps the ability (as in, there was no set law in the manifesto or the church to excommunicate anyone involved with polygamy as per the Manifesto) to excommunicate. The Manifesto itself only states

And I now publicly declare that my ADVICE to the Latter-day Saints is to REFRAIN from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

This leaves a LOT of leeway. By leeway I mean a HUGE gaping Hole. This is almost akin to the original take of the word of wisdom. This is only ADVICE, and it's not even forbidding it outright, but saying that they refrain, and only if it is forbidden by the law of the land.

I don't think Wilford or Lorenzo had ANY power to excommunicate someone, even if they outright knew of such performances of ceremony, as per the items written in that Manifesto.

Furthermore, if those who did not agree with doing away with Polygamy in the church were truly doing it as it was perceived to have been done in Joseph's time, it is possible that they may have even kept these things hidden from Wilford Woodruff himself. He probably would have seen the evidences of it, but it is even possible he could not catch them in the act.

It isn't until Joseph F. Smith where he makes it absolutely clear with the Second Manifesto what will happen. In addition, their pursuit of such became much more stringent and those who disagreed with such manifestos were noted and observed. Joseph F. hence had the power given explicitly through his second Manifesto, and in addition had a much harder form of evidence to convict.

This could be the reason WHY it appears polygamy ended in 1890, but in truth did not truly end until 1904-1906.


And there you have it, explanations for both sides who believe Joseph DID practice, and those who didn't (and in truth, for the specific question of 1890 and beyond, it doesn't matter if he did or didn't, what matters is what they PERCEIVED was done). I think the key though is the wording and the power each manifesto gave to the Presidency in enforcing doing away with Polygamy in the LDS church. It is obvious the first Manifesto really didn't give power to do so, while the second Manifesto which came later did.

[Fiannan]

No Dash, love today is more of that glittery, "He makes me feel so special" narcissistic supply sort of thing. Love in the Bible Days was one of creating a bond of loyalty and teamwork.

Which "love" you think endures through eternity?

[marc]

Joseph Smith stated this ONE MONTH before he was killed.

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, May 1844; History of the Church Vol 6 pg 411.

I believe Joseph. I stand with him.

[Zathura]

Joseph Smith stated this ONE MONTH before he was killed.

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, May 1844; History of the Church Vol 6 pg 411.

I believe Joseph. I stand with him.

I as well

[rewcox]

As far as the implementation of polygamy is concerned, it doesn't matter if Joseph practiced it or not. Brigham Young and other leaders practiced it for sure.

Did God authorize polygamy? If you say no, then God allowed a terrible injustice to women, who he loves. I don't believe God went on vacation at a critical moment in the restoration.

Joseph Smith stated this ONE MONTH before he was killed.

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, May 1844; History of the Church Vol 6 pg 411.

I believe Joseph. I stand with him.

[ajax]

Did God authorize polygamy? If you say no, then God allowed a terrible injustice to women, who he loves. I don't believe God went on vacation at a critical moment in the restoration.

Read your OT much? Are there any injustices to women there? How bout slaves and servants? Did righteous people own them? Why did God allow it?

[EdGoble]

If polygamy was officially commanded by God to cease in 1890, but it apparently continued secretly for 10 or so more years at least, by

General Authorities included, then wouldn't that mean they were breaking God's commandments? In those 10+ years after the manifesto, it wouldn't be any different than me grabbing 3 or 4 wives tomorrow. SO today, If I would be excommunicated for polygamy today, what does that say about church members, including general authorities who continued it during those 10+ years, even when God had apparently officially commanded it to stop?

Who can explain this?
If the General Authorities at that time had an understanding, or even better, a KNOWLEDGE (Since they ALL are apparently PSR's) that God had commanded his people to cease polygamy and that as of 1890, polygamy became something that you can be excommunicated for, why would certain leaders and other members continue this practice?

As Rewcox LOVES to state, polygamy isn't a law now, but it was back then. Using Rewcox's statement, as of 1890, you could not practice polygamy. As of 1890, if you practiced it, it was grounds for excommunication, and your children could be baptized without disavowing the practice.
If I practiced polygamy today, and advocated it, how would I be received here? How would I be received in the church?
I wouldn't be received well at all.
Well, following the manifesto, it was still practiced in secret.

Considering the actions of our Leaders(PSR's) I see 2 options.

1. Polygamy(The form of it that was practiced in the church) is of God, but God didn't actually revoke it, the church just did the manifesto to satisfy the government, and the General Authorities understood this, and for this reason they continued in secret because it was God's will.
Otherwise, the leaders that continued it in secret were sinning horribly, because it was a practice that God apparently no longer approved of.

2. Polygamy(The form of it that was practiced in the church) was never commanded by God, and the church sent out the manifesto to satisfy the government, and they continued practicing it in secret because the General Authorities had never been told by God to ever start this practice, or stop it. Rather than give up their women, they attempted to keep them in secret. Instead of shedding a man-made tradition, they attempted to continue it.

The concept put forward at the time after 1890, until 1904, as I understand it, was that the Church itself was no longer responsible, or in other words, no longer the instigator of the practice. And yes, it was secret. But that after 1890, the responsibility for the practice was put solely on those that continued the practice. It is true that they still had to get permission to do it from the authorities, but the consequences and responsibility to the law were on the heads of the people practicing it. And even when authorities did give permission, it seemed like the president of the Church had a don't ask don't tell attitude. After 1904, then the Church instructed that all marriages really would stop except for those already existing, that they would no longer give permission, and attached the penalty of excommunication to it. So, it is a Church policy change that made the responsibility lay on the heads of those practicing it after 1890 without Church penalty. And similarly, it was a Church policy change that attached excommunication to it and mandated its true end in 1904. You can conclude what you want about whether this is all inspired or not, or whether there is partial inspiration involved at all. I make no attempt to defend it, and I certainly don't advocate for it. I just know who has the keys.

[braingrunt]

To the brethren at the time, the manifesto was a political move. God, in his wisdom, intended it to be the start of something more. If not for it, I'm sure that we would have been less prepared for the 2nd manifesto... was that 1905? And accountability for the end of polygamy rapidly began to increase. In retrospect, we can see the 1890 manifesto as God moving upon Wilford Woodruff, in ways that Wilford Woodruff didn't fully understand at first.

To me, this does not imply a fall in the brethren, it implies a patient God willing to prepare their minds a little before holding them accountable. Of course, this DOES imply to me that even the prophet doesn't always see clearly afar off... either because he could not receive it or because God knew it would better serve his purposes somehow. Perhaps this idea would offend some who put the brethren on too high a pedestal, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

[ajax]

In retrospect, we can see the 1890 manifesto as God moving upon Wilford Woodruff,

Yeah, through the US Government.

God was probably tiring of the:

"cries of the fair daughters",
their "tenderness",
the "broken hearts of your tender wives",
"the sobbings of their hearts ascending up to God"

[Sarah]

Joseph Smith stated this ONE MONTH before he was killed.

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, May 1844; History of the Church Vol 6 pg 411.

I believe Joseph. I stand with him.

In Joseph's mind, he certainly was not committing adultery. And the world would expect a wife to live openly as a wife, which the women he was sealed to were not doing. Regardless of what Joseph was really thinking, I don't see how people can disregard all the other evidence all because of a few public statements.

[EdGoble]

In retrospect, we can see the 1890 manifesto as God moving upon Wilford Woodruff,

Yeah, through the US Government.

God was probably tiring of the:

"cries of the fair daughters",
their "tenderness",
the "broken hearts of your tender wives",
"the sobbings of their hearts ascending up to God"

Here's the problem with your statement.

When men take it upon themselves, to do something that they were not commanded, then they are a transgressor. And those that suffer the consequences of someone else's breaking of the commandments are justified in opposing the fact that someone is breaking commandments, and are justified in having "broken hearts", etc. And the men in these situations are the ones opposing the Lord's purposes. And so, of course it is true that the women justifiably are the victimized ones, and justifiably feel as they ought.

However, when anyone stands in the way of a commandment of the Lord when it is in force as a commandment, then they become the transgressor, and the tables are turned. It is understandable that the women would similarly feel what they feel in those cases, just as much as they would when commandments are broken when there is no commandment. These righteous men would not do it without the command or permission of the Lord, and so, when the women oppose it, the women become those who stand in the way of the Lord's purposes. And while it is true that righteous men do not want their wives to suffer heartache and so forth and so on, the reality is, women that oppose a commandment like this, when in force, are in the same state as anyone that opposes the Lord in any other way or case. They are on the wrong side of the fence in that case. And so, as much as it is a difficult thing to be asked to do for anyone, it is still what is required in the points in history when it is required. It is still the sacrifice that is required at the time it is required.

So, your characterization of the feelings of the women in both cases is the reality. Nevertheless, the complexity of it is that in one case they are justified in it. In the other case, they certainly feel it, but its not like their husbands did it with the intent to cause them pain. And it is sad and wrong that you would characterize it that way, as if that is the case. When the responsibility of it is on the Lord, then the justification for things is different. And rather than becoming "victims" of a situation, rather the case is that at that point, a sacrifice is being required.

[marc]

Joseph Smith stated this ONE MONTH before he was killed.

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, May 1844; History of the Church Vol 6 pg 411.

I believe Joseph. I stand with him.

In Joseph's mind, he certainly was not committing adultery. And the world would expect a wife to live openly as a wife, which the women he was sealed to were not doing. Regardless of what Joseph was really thinking, I don't see how people can disregard all the other evidence all because of a few public statements.

Perhaps what you or others assume Joseph was thinking. Truly, as Joseph said, "know man knows my heart."

What Joseph stated by his own voice or wrote with his own pen, in my mind, far outweighs any evidence, which one supposes might be reliable. How can I disregard evidence or their sources? By regarding His testimony. Besides, can you find any proof that Joseph fathered children with anyone other than Emma? Nobody else can or has for that matter.