The Polygamy Poll

[Fiannan]

I knew a woman who, for a research project, researched polyamory. What she found is that young women go into such groups but in their 20s they tend to pair off with one primary male. This is when they often quit the group and form a relationship with that man. Not that many women in their prime reproductive years stay in such groups. Then, once they have had their intended children, they get interested in it again. Research has also show that it is around 40 that many women start getting involved in relationships with other women.

This makes sense. When one is not yet thinking about babies the whole shared partner thing an be exciting. But the prime years for reproducing a woman wants one male partner. Then when reproduction is no longer a factor they get interested in exploring sex as a game again.

One other thing that may be important here. Many women from conservative backgrounds, the sort that make sex sound like a necessary evil, often lose interest in sex after they are done with making babies. More liberal women tend to see sex in a more recreational context, or even as enhancing health and spirituality. This could explain why marriages tend to last longer in liberal areas of the nation. Ironic, huh? Also may explain why liberal couples report enjoying their sex lives far longer than conservative couples. Could also explain why so many middle-aged men from conservative backgrounds return to acting like teenage guys in relation to porn viewing.

Not saying conservative women should become liberal. However, they should try to see sexuality as something fun and creative. Of course the downside has already been mentioned in that some liberals may decide their husbands are boring once the age of 40 hits. Freud was correct that too much one way or the other tends to have its downsides.

[Fiannan]

Whether you believe in polygamy or not. Patriarchal systems are expansive, while feminist societies or gynecocracies contract.

Good point. Most societies that have been polyandrous have been in the Himalayas. Brutal environment with hardly any land to farm. Can’t support demographic expansion. So limit the number of babies being born. Anti-Natalist to the core. It represents societal demise. I guess population control is now in vogue.

Is there any question that it is?

Saturday's Warrior was singing "Who Can Survive?" 40 years ago. I "only" have 4 kids and people look at me like I have 4 heads instead. Preventing people from having sex with the opposite sex and encouraging them to have relationships with each other instead is actually an even more brilliant tactic to limit reproduction than trying to convince a monogamous couple to limit their family to 0-2 kids, lets alone ensuring they do so.

True. Only wealthy gay male couples can afford to pay a woman to have a baby for them and typically lesbian couples only have one or two kids. I know a lesbian woman who is nearing her mid 30s and still says she and her wife are not ready to have kids. If they do I bet it will be when they are around 38 and they will have one. That is a major drop in potential births when two women have one kid between them.

[ElizaRSkousen]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any?

I've spent 1000's of hours reading both sides of the issue. I've come to the conclusion there are only two options. One is Joseph Smith was both a liar and an adulter. The second is he told the truth and had nothing to do with polygamy, spiritual wifery, celestial marriage, etc. I choose to believe that Joseph was an honorable man and prophet. I don't believe you can teach and practice polygamy and be honorable or a prophet.

Note - The above is my opinion after many hours of prayer and study. Of course you're free to have your own opinion. Respectfully.

Of course there is a third option, whether you think it is viable or not is irrelevant, it’s still an option.

Joseph Smith was an honest and righteous man who was called of god to restore the church in its fullness, who practiced polygamy and polyandry as commanded, and refrained from casting his pearls before the swine who would not accept it.

"refrained from casting his pearls before the swine who would not accept it"

Would that include the time that Joseph and Hyrum excommunicated the guy named Hiram Brown who literally did nothing but practice polygamy? Was his soul just a necessary casualty?

Let's create a little scenario. Pretend that President Nelson truly practices the true and Holy practice of Polygamy but none of us know it. He actually has UP TO 40 REAL LIFE WIVES, they might be your neighbors! You might know most of them! Pretend that currently at this moment, God approves of polygamy(But you don't know he does).
He gets up in General Conference and says the following:

“… some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may has as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.” (This is originally Hyrum as President of the church from Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474 (March, 1844))

Let's also pretend that your D&C Section 101 said the following:

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again

Also pretend that LITERALLY A MONTH before President Nelson dies , he gathers up alll the Saints in Salt Lake Valley and gives a speech, and again claims that he has but ONE WIFE and is not guilty of the claims that others have been making of him.

Then the newly anointed President Dallin H Oaks proceeds to preach Polygamy throughout the next 30 years, telling you "President Nelson taught me all of this in private" "Yes I know he was pretty adamant that it was bad, but it reaaaaally isn't guys"

** End of Scenario**

That's literally what happened. That's why I can't accept your third option.

You can believe whatever you want! I don’t need to convince you of anything

President Nelson is not Joseph Smith, to me the argument does not compare.

But there’s some miseducation or misunderstanding in my opinion if you guys think that no other prophet has ever “lied” about something to the general public. I can literally think of many examples off the top of my head, INCLUDING wilford woodruffs first manifesto.

[MMbelieve]

Whether you believe in polygamy or not. Patriarchal systems are expansive, while feminist societies or gynecocracies contract.

Good point. Most societies that have been polyandrous have been in the Himalayas. Brutal environment with hardly any land to farm. Can’t support demographic expansion. So limit the number of babies being born. Anti-Natalist to the core. It represents societal demise. I guess population control is now in vogue.

Is there any question that it is?

Saturday's Warrior was singing "Who Can Survive?" 40 years ago. I "only" have 4 kids and people look at me like I have 4 heads instead. Preventing people from having sex with the opposite sex and encouraging them to have relationships with each other instead is actually an even more brilliant tactic to limit reproduction than trying to convince a monogamous couple to limit their family to 0-2 kids, lets alone ensuring they do so.

True. Only wealthy gay male couples can afford to pay a woman to have a baby for them and typically lesbian couples only have one or two kids. I know a lesbian woman who is nearing her mid 30s and still says she and her wife are not ready to have kids. If they do I bet it will be when they are around 38 and they will have one. That is a major drop in potential births when two women have one kid between them.

I have a hard time pushing that everyone should have multiple kids of their own when there are so many kids who are in state care without parents. People should be adopting as many as they can, especially christians.

[MMbelieve]

I knew a woman who, for a research project, researched polyamory. What she found is that young women go into such groups but in their 20s they tend to pair off with one primary male. This is when they often quit the group and form a relationship with that man. Not that many women in their prime reproductive years stay in such groups. Then, once they have had their intended children, they get interested in it again. Research has also show that it is around 40 that many women start getting involved in relationships with other women.

This makes sense. When one is not yet thinking about babies the whole shared partner thing an be exciting. But the prime years for reproducing a woman wants one male partner. Then when reproduction is no longer a factor they get interested in exploring sex as a game again.

One other thing that may be important here. Many women from conservative backgrounds, the sort that make sex sound like a necessary evil, often lose interest in sex after they are done with making babies. More liberal women tend to see sex in a more recreational context, or even as enhancing health and spirituality. This could explain why marriages tend to last longer in liberal areas of the nation. Ironic, huh? Also may explain why liberal couples report enjoying their sex lives far longer than conservative couples. Could also explain why so many middle-aged men from conservative backgrounds return to acting like teenage guys in relation to porn viewing.

Not saying conservative women should become liberal. However, they should try to see sexuality as something fun and creative. Of course the downside has already been mentioned in that some liberals may decide their husbands are boring once the age of 40 hits. Freud was correct that too much one way or the other tends to have its downsides.

Pretty sure plenty of conservative men view sex differently than others as well. And they should view it differently. The world view and practice about sexuality is not what we should be adhering to. I also think part of the problem is the difference between the world view of everything goes and the christian view of saving and keeping yourself clean and pure.

[Zathura]

I've spent 1000's of hours reading both sides of the issue. I've come to the conclusion there are only two options. One is Joseph Smith was both a liar and an adulter. The second is he told the truth and had nothing to do with polygamy, spiritual wifery, celestial marriage, etc. I choose to believe that Joseph was an honorable man and prophet. I don't believe you can teach and practice polygamy and be honorable or a prophet.

Note - The above is my opinion after many hours of prayer and study. Of course you're free to have your own opinion. Respectfully.

Of course there is a third option, whether you think it is viable or not is irrelevant, it’s still an option.

Joseph Smith was an honest and righteous man who was called of god to restore the church in its fullness, who practiced polygamy and polyandry as commanded, and refrained from casting his pearls before the swine who would not accept it.

"refrained from casting his pearls before the swine who would not accept it"

Would that include the time that Joseph and Hyrum excommunicated the guy named Hiram Brown who literally did nothing but practice polygamy? Was his soul just a necessary casualty?

Let's create a little scenario. Pretend that President Nelson truly practices the true and Holy practice of Polygamy but none of us know it. He actually has UP TO 40 REAL LIFE WIVES, they might be your neighbors! You might know most of them! Pretend that currently at this moment, God approves of polygamy(But you don't know he does).
He gets up in General Conference and says the following:

“… some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may has as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.” (This is originally Hyrum as President of the church from Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474 (March, 1844))

Let's also pretend that your D&C Section 101 said the following:

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again

Also pretend that LITERALLY A MONTH before President Nelson dies , he gathers up alll the Saints in Salt Lake Valley and gives a speech, and again claims that he has but ONE WIFE and is not guilty of the claims that others have been making of him.

Then the newly anointed President Dallin H Oaks proceeds to preach Polygamy throughout the next 30 years, telling you "President Nelson taught me all of this in private" "Yes I know he was pretty adamant that it was bad, but it reaaaaally isn't guys"

** End of Scenario**

That's literally what happened. That's why I can't accept your third option.

You can believe whatever you want! I don’t need to convince you of anything

President Nelson is not Joseph Smith, to me the argument does not compare.

But there’s some miseducation or misunderstanding in my opinion if you guys think that no other prophet has ever “lied” about something to the general public. I can literally think of many examples off the top of my head, INCLUDING wilford woodruffs first manifesto.

It’s one thing to “lie for the Lord”, especially when talking to the government and outside entities that would harm the church.

It’s another to lie to the body of the church repeatedly for years and give multiple talks condemning it in the strongest terms possible , write letters and excommunicate people who practiced it when it was really fine all along. And on top of that release a D&C section that condemns it as well. Since it was removed , was God lying? Did they fabricate the section?

I can’t accept that Joseph practiced it and lied. Either he was innocent as he said he was, or he was a liar and practiced what I believe to be an abomination. No third option for me!

[Fiannan]

I have a hard time pushing that everyone should have multiple kids of their own when there are so many kids who are in state care without parents. People should be adopting as many as they can, especially christians.

Good for you to virtue signal. How many have you adopted?

[MMbelieve]

I have a hard time pushing that everyone should have multiple kids of their own when there are so many kids who are in state care without parents. People should be adopting as many as they can, especially christians.

Good for you to virtue signal. How many have you adopted?

What does virtue signal mean?

[Fiannan]

I have a hard time pushing that everyone should have multiple kids of their own when there are so many kids who are in state care without parents. People should be adopting as many as they can, especially christians.

Good for you to virtue signal. How many have you adopted?

What does virtue signal mean?

Defined: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... Signalling

[MMbelieve]

I have a hard time pushing that everyone should have multiple kids of their own when there are so many kids who are in state care without parents. People should be adopting as many as they can, especially christians.

Good for you to virtue signal. How many have you adopted?

What does virtue signal mean?

Defined: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... Signalling

I dont know how im showing im more moral than others by suggesting adoption.
You talking about having children is also virtue signaling? By saying your more moral than others because you had more children or something, I dont get it.
Kids need parents and christians believe in family and children and charity so they are great candidates for giving these kids a home.

[ElizaRSkousen]

Of course there is a third option, whether you think it is viable or not is irrelevant, it’s still an option.

Joseph Smith was an honest and righteous man who was called of god to restore the church in its fullness, who practiced polygamy and polyandry as commanded, and refrained from casting his pearls before the swine who would not accept it.

"refrained from casting his pearls before the swine who would not accept it"

Would that include the time that Joseph and Hyrum excommunicated the guy named Hiram Brown who literally did nothing but practice polygamy? Was his soul just a necessary casualty?

Let's create a little scenario. Pretend that President Nelson truly practices the true and Holy practice of Polygamy but none of us know it. He actually has UP TO 40 REAL LIFE WIVES, they might be your neighbors! You might know most of them! Pretend that currently at this moment, God approves of polygamy(But you don't know he does).
He gets up in General Conference and says the following:

“… some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may has as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.” (This is originally Hyrum as President of the church from Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474 (March, 1844))

Let's also pretend that your D&C Section 101 said the following:

Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again

Also pretend that LITERALLY A MONTH before President Nelson dies , he gathers up alll the Saints in Salt Lake Valley and gives a speech, and again claims that he has but ONE WIFE and is not guilty of the claims that others have been making of him.

Then the newly anointed President Dallin H Oaks proceeds to preach Polygamy throughout the next 30 years, telling you "President Nelson taught me all of this in private" "Yes I know he was pretty adamant that it was bad, but it reaaaaally isn't guys"

** End of Scenario**

That's literally what happened. That's why I can't accept your third option.

You can believe whatever you want! I don’t need to convince you of anything

President Nelson is not Joseph Smith, to me the argument does not compare.

But there’s some miseducation or misunderstanding in my opinion if you guys think that no other prophet has ever “lied” about something to the general public. I can literally think of many examples off the top of my head, INCLUDING wilford woodruffs first manifesto.

It’s one thing to “lie for the Lord”, especially when talking to the government and outside entities that would harm the church.

It’s another to lie to the body of the church repeatedly for years and give multiple talks condemning it in the strongest terms possible , write letters and excommunicate people who practiced it when it was really fine all along. And on top of that release a D&C section that condemns it as well. Since it was removed , was God lying? Did they fabricate the section?

I can’t accept that Joseph practiced it and lied. Either he was innocent as he said he was, or he was a liar and practiced what I believe to be an abomination. No third option for me!

That’s fine. The in depth reading I have done from journals on the subject convices me otherwise, but since you have not done that reading I cannot convince you what you have not read.

[Fiannan]

I dont know how im showing im more moral than others by suggesting adoption.
You talking about having children is also virtue signaling? By saying your more moral than others because you had more children or something, I dont get it.
Kids need parents and christians believe in family and children and charity so they are great candidates for giving these kids a home.

No, I have actually never told anyone here how many children I have.

If one says that someone has a moral obligation to do something, and they have not done it, then that is virtue signaling. And if one tells a person that maybe, rather than use whatever means are available to reproduce, they should just adopt instead, then what is that?

[John Tavner]

"refrained from casting his pearls before the swine who would not accept it"

Would that include the time that Joseph and Hyrum excommunicated the guy named Hiram Brown who literally did nothing but practice polygamy? Was his soul just a necessary casualty?

Let's create a little scenario. Pretend that President Nelson truly practices the true and Holy practice of Polygamy but none of us know it. He actually has UP TO 40 REAL LIFE WIVES, they might be your neighbors! You might know most of them! Pretend that currently at this moment, God approves of polygamy(But you don't know he does).
He gets up in General Conference and says the following:



Let's also pretend that your D&C Section 101 said the following:



Also pretend that LITERALLY A MONTH before President Nelson dies , he gathers up alll the Saints in Salt Lake Valley and gives a speech, and again claims that he has but ONE WIFE and is not guilty of the claims that others have been making of him.

Then the newly anointed President Dallin H Oaks proceeds to preach Polygamy throughout the next 30 years, telling you "President Nelson taught me all of this in private" "Yes I know he was pretty adamant that it was bad, but it reaaaaally isn't guys"

** End of Scenario**

That's literally what happened. That's why I can't accept your third option.

You can believe whatever you want! I don’t need to convince you of anything

President Nelson is not Joseph Smith, to me the argument does not compare.

But there’s some miseducation or misunderstanding in my opinion if you guys think that no other prophet has ever “lied” about something to the general public. I can literally think of many examples off the top of my head, INCLUDING wilford woodruffs first manifesto.

It’s one thing to “lie for the Lord”, especially when talking to the government and outside entities that would harm the church.

It’s another to lie to the body of the church repeatedly for years and give multiple talks condemning it in the strongest terms possible , write letters and excommunicate people who practiced it when it was really fine all along. And on top of that release a D&C section that condemns it as well. Since it was removed , was God lying? Did they fabricate the section?

I can’t accept that Joseph practiced it and lied. Either he was innocent as he said he was, or he was a liar and practiced what I believe to be an abomination. No third option for me!

That’s fine. The in depth reading I have done from journals on the subject convices me otherwise, but since you have not done that reading I cannot convince you what you have not read.

You make a lot of assumptions - as if Stahura didin't read. I have read quite a bit myself and I believe as does Stahura - two people can read something and get different things out of it especially when looking at the evidence in context. Context is key.

[Benaishtart]

Sorry guys but no credible historians believe that Joseph didn’t start plural marriage. We got thousands of journal entries corroborating with each other. The church knows and teaches this very very plainly. I read Saints and found it interesting how frank the church made it seem that this was a real commandment from God almighty. These relationships would be eternal. Women received revelation comforting them of this eternal principle. Whether or not it was practiced right or not is irrelevant. D&C132 is cannonized scripture and the church isn’t going to back down from that. It’s on solid historical footing advocating for eternal marriage. Those who say it’s not doctrinal disagree with the private views of the prophets. I get that Joseph had completely different public position. His and the saints safety was at stake. I really don’t care what Hinckley said on Larry King either. All these people who don’t believe that Joseph initiated plural marriage are historical, spiritual, and reality denialists. I testify that Joseph, Brigham, and all the other prophets were righteous and moral men. My testimony has been greatly strengthened by relying on the true history of these people who experienced the restoration.

[Zathura]

"refrained from casting his pearls before the swine who would not accept it"

Would that include the time that Joseph and Hyrum excommunicated the guy named Hiram Brown who literally did nothing but practice polygamy? Was his soul just a necessary casualty?

Let's create a little scenario. Pretend that President Nelson truly practices the true and Holy practice of Polygamy but none of us know it. He actually has UP TO 40 REAL LIFE WIVES, they might be your neighbors! You might know most of them! Pretend that currently at this moment, God approves of polygamy(But you don't know he does).
He gets up in General Conference and says the following:



Let's also pretend that your D&C Section 101 said the following:



Also pretend that LITERALLY A MONTH before President Nelson dies , he gathers up alll the Saints in Salt Lake Valley and gives a speech, and again claims that he has but ONE WIFE and is not guilty of the claims that others have been making of him.

Then the newly anointed President Dallin H Oaks proceeds to preach Polygamy throughout the next 30 years, telling you "President Nelson taught me all of this in private" "Yes I know he was pretty adamant that it was bad, but it reaaaaally isn't guys"

** End of Scenario**

That's literally what happened. That's why I can't accept your third option.

You can believe whatever you want! I don’t need to convince you of anything

President Nelson is not Joseph Smith, to me the argument does not compare.

But there’s some miseducation or misunderstanding in my opinion if you guys think that no other prophet has ever “lied” about something to the general public. I can literally think of many examples off the top of my head, INCLUDING wilford woodruffs first manifesto.

It’s one thing to “lie for the Lord”, especially when talking to the government and outside entities that would harm the church.

It’s another to lie to the body of the church repeatedly for years and give multiple talks condemning it in the strongest terms possible , write letters and excommunicate people who practiced it when it was really fine all along. And on top of that release a D&C section that condemns it as well. Since it was removed , was God lying? Did they fabricate the section?

I can’t accept that Joseph practiced it and lied. Either he was innocent as he said he was, or he was a liar and practiced what I believe to be an abomination. No third option for me!

That’s fine. The in depth reading I have done from journals on the subject convices me otherwise, but since you have not done that reading I cannot convince you what you have not read.

I’ve read all the journal of discourses, I’ve poured through Church History, I’ve read numerous books about Brigham Young . Some about the period of the treks, others about the first few years in the west, others about his whole life, all of these books paint him in good light.

You shouldn’t assume I haven’t read what you have just because I came out of it with a different conclusion

Edit: you can add Joseph Smith papers to that.

I read Denver Snuffers Material, i then read Brian C Hales response to Denver Snuffer. I read Michael Quinn’s books and also read rebuttals to his writings.

I’ve read every “side” and everything in between

[Zathura]

Sorry guys but no credible historians believe that Joseph didn’t start plural marriage. We got thousands of journal entries corroborating with each other. The church knows and teaches this very very plainly. I read Saints and found it interesting how frank the church made it seem that this was a real commandment from God almighty. These relationships would be eternal. Women received revelation comforting them of this eternal principle. Whether or not it was practiced right or not is irrelevant. D&C132 is cannonized scripture and the church isn’t going to back down from that. It’s on solid historical footing advocating for eternal marriage. Those who say it’s not doctrinal disagree with the private views of the prophets. I get that Joseph had completely different public position. His and the saints safety was at stake. I really don’t care what Hinckley said on Larry King either. All these people who don’t believe that Joseph initiated plural marriage are historical, spiritual, and reality denialists. I testify that Joseph, Brigham, and all the other prophets were righteous and moral men. My testimony has been greatly strengthened by relying on the true history of these people who experienced the restoration.

Alright, soon as you show me where Prophets and the scriptures back your previous testimony and teach that righteous women that are raped have less power than a woman that hasn’t and that hymens are somehow crucial to their spiritual power, then I’ll take your testimony here seriously . Sound good?

[ElizaRSkousen]

Sorry guys but no credible historians believe that Joseph didn’t start plural marriage. We got thousands of journal entries corroborating with each other. The church knows and teaches this very very plainly. I read Saints and found it interesting how frank the church made it seem that this was a real commandment from God almighty. These relationships would be eternal. Women received revelation comforting them of this eternal principle. Whether or not it was practiced right or not is irrelevant. D&C132 is cannonized scripture and the church isn’t going to back down from that. It’s on solid historical footing advocating for eternal marriage. Those who say it’s not doctrinal disagree with the private views of the prophets. I get that Joseph had completely different public position. His and the saints safety was at stake. I really don’t care what Hinckley said on Larry King either. All these people who don’t believe that Joseph initiated plural marriage are historical, spiritual, and reality denialists. I testify that Joseph, Brigham, and all the other prophets were righteous and moral men. My testimony has been greatly strengthened by relying on the true history of these people who experienced the restoration.

Alright, soon as you show me where Prophets and the scriptures back your previous testimony and teach that righteous women that are raped have less power than a woman that hasn’t and that hymens are somehow crucial to their spiritual power, then I’ll take your testimony here seriously . Sound good?

What ?

[ElizaRSkousen]

You can believe whatever you want! I don’t need to convince you of anything

President Nelson is not Joseph Smith, to me the argument does not compare.

But there’s some miseducation or misunderstanding in my opinion if you guys think that no other prophet has ever “lied” about something to the general public. I can literally think of many examples off the top of my head, INCLUDING wilford woodruffs first manifesto.

It’s one thing to “lie for the Lord”, especially when talking to the government and outside entities that would harm the church.

It’s another to lie to the body of the church repeatedly for years and give multiple talks condemning it in the strongest terms possible , write letters and excommunicate people who practiced it when it was really fine all along. And on top of that release a D&C section that condemns it as well. Since it was removed , was God lying? Did they fabricate the section?

I can’t accept that Joseph practiced it and lied. Either he was innocent as he said he was, or he was a liar and practiced what I believe to be an abomination. No third option for me!

That’s fine. The in depth reading I have done from journals on the subject convices me otherwise, but since you have not done that reading I cannot convince you what you have not read.

I’ve read all the journal of discourses, I’ve poured through Church History, I’ve read numerous books about Brigham Young . Some about the period of the treks, others about the first few years in the west, others about his whole life, all of these books paint him in good light.

You shouldn’t assume I haven’t read what you have just because I came out of it with a different conclusion

Edit: you can add Joseph Smith papers to that.

I read Denver Snuffers Material, i then read Brian C Hales response to Denver Snuffer. I read Michael Quinn’s books and also read rebuttals to his writings.

I’ve read every “side” and everything in between

Well then I apologize for my false assumptions, and I would say that the conclusion you have reached is very strange to me and not what I would consider rational or logical.

But most people on this forum disagree with me on one topic or another...

[Zathura]

Sorry guys but no credible historians believe that Joseph didn’t start plural marriage. We got thousands of journal entries corroborating with each other. The church knows and teaches this very very plainly. I read Saints and found it interesting how frank the church made it seem that this was a real commandment from God almighty. These relationships would be eternal. Women received revelation comforting them of this eternal principle. Whether or not it was practiced right or not is irrelevant. D&C132 is cannonized scripture and the church isn’t going to back down from that. It’s on solid historical footing advocating for eternal marriage. Those who say it’s not doctrinal disagree with the private views of the prophets. I get that Joseph had completely different public position. His and the saints safety was at stake. I really don’t care what Hinckley said on Larry King either. All these people who don’t believe that Joseph initiated plural marriage are historical, spiritual, and reality denialists. I testify that Joseph, Brigham, and all the other prophets were righteous and moral men. My testimony has been greatly strengthened by relying on the true history of these people who experienced the restoration.

Alright, soon as you show me where Prophets and the scriptures back your previous testimony and teach that righteous women that are raped have less power than a woman that hasn’t and that hymens are somehow crucial to their spiritual power, then I’ll take your testimony here seriously . Sound good?

What ?

You’ll have to look at his Posts in the thread he started about virtue. Talked about those things, and received “revelation” about it .

[ElizaRSkousen]

Sorry guys but no credible historians believe that Joseph didn’t start plural marriage. We got thousands of journal entries corroborating with each other. The church knows and teaches this very very plainly. I read Saints and found it interesting how frank the church made it seem that this was a real commandment from God almighty. These relationships would be eternal. Women received revelation comforting them of this eternal principle. Whether or not it was practiced right or not is irrelevant. D&C132 is cannonized scripture and the church isn’t going to back down from that. It’s on solid historical footing advocating for eternal marriage. Those who say it’s not doctrinal disagree with the private views of the prophets. I get that Joseph had completely different public position. His and the saints safety was at stake. I really don’t care what Hinckley said on Larry King either. All these people who don’t believe that Joseph initiated plural marriage are historical, spiritual, and reality denialists. I testify that Joseph, Brigham, and all the other prophets were righteous and moral men. My testimony has been greatly strengthened by relying on the true history of these people who experienced the restoration.

Alright, soon as you show me where Prophets and the scriptures back your previous testimony and teach that righteous women that are raped have less power than a woman that hasn’t and that hymens are somehow crucial to their spiritual power, then I’ll take your testimony here seriously . Sound good?

What ?

You’ll have to look at his Posts in the thread he started about virtue. Talked about those things, and received “revelation” about it .

Honest question:

So how do you personally decide which doctrines to believe and disbelieve?

[Zathura]

Alright, soon as you show me where Prophets and the scriptures back your previous testimony and teach that righteous women that are raped have less power than a woman that hasn’t and that hymens are somehow crucial to their spiritual power, then I’ll take your testimony here seriously . Sound good?

What ?

You’ll have to look at his Posts in the thread he started about virtue. Talked about those things, and received “revelation” about it .

Honest question:

So how do you personally decide which doctrines to believe and disbelieve?

There are few things that I can say “I know”, things that I’ve truly received by the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon me. For those other things that I’ve yet to receive an answer on, I’m left to do my research and until I receive further instruction I make my own conclusion like I would with anything else in life.
Even if someone has the highest calling in the church, I’m not obligated to believe what that person says If what they say contradicts another person who is supposed to be a prophet, or if it contradicts the scriptures .I have a right to find out for myself what the truth is. In this specific instance , there is way too much that has been intentionally doctored and removed and made to LOOK like Joseph said something when he literally never said or wrote it. (And to be clear, it’s not a theory that this was done, its something that can’t really be disputed)
There are examples of this on topics that have nothing to do with polygamy(like the “transfiguration” of Brigham Young).

In this case I look at the big picture, take in all the facts, all the heresay, the rumors etc. and I came to my own conclusion. I’ve never made the claim that what I believe is the truth. My belief in what actually occurred in this instance is relatively open-ended. I just have a strong belief as to what definitely DID NOT happen.

I firmly believe that the form of polygamy practiced by BY and co is wrong , and that this form of polygamy was never practiced or taught by Joseph.
Maybe Joseph did have some sort of plural marriage going on, but if he did it simply wasn’t what Brigham taught. Maybe Joseph Smith 100% told the truth and was never involved in this doctrine and was never involved in anything similar to it , I don’t know. There are many possibilities that I could accept.

To me, there are 2 main options, or main branches.

Either Joseph was a liar and practiced something that I believe to be an abomination according to the scriptures and that continued on until 1900s,

Or,

Joseph did not preach or practice what Brigham preached and practice . There are multiple smaller branches of possibilities that sprout from this large branch that I accept as possibly being the truth.

I think like a programmer, and my mind envisions an If- Else statement with nested If-Else statements(I’m sure that’s nonsense to you, but to some that might help explain my thinking) the first condition having one outcome, while the 2nd condition has multiple possible outcomes

[John Tavner]

What ?

You’ll have to look at his Posts in the thread he started about virtue. Talked about those things, and received “revelation” about it .

Honest question:

So how do you personally decide which doctrines to believe and disbelieve?

There are few things that I can say “I know”, things that I’ve truly received by the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon me. For those other things that I’ve yet to receive an answer on, I’m left to do my research and until I receive further instruction I make my own conclusion like I would with anything else in life.
Even if someone has the highest calling in the church, I’m not obligated to believe what that person says If what they say contradicts another person who is supposed to be a prophet, or if it contradicts the scriptures .I have a right to find out for myself what the truth is. In this specific instance , there is way too much that has been intentionally doctored and removed and made to LOOK like Joseph said something when he literally never said or wrote it. (And to be clear, it’s not a theory that this was done, its something that can’t really be disputed)
There are examples of this on topics that have nothing to do with polygamy(like the “transfiguration” of Brigham Young).

In this case I look at the big picture, take in all the facts, all the heresay, the rumors etc. and I came to my own conclusion. I’ve never made the claim that what I believe is the truth. My belief in what actually occurred in this instance is relatively open-ended. I just have a strong belief as to what definitely DID NOT happen.

I firmly believe that the form of polygamy practiced by BY and co is wrong , and that this form of polygamy was never practiced or taught by Joseph.
Maybe Joseph did have some sort of plural marriage going on, but if he did it simply wasn’t what Brigham taught. Maybe Joseph Smith 100% told the truth and was never involved in this doctrine and was never involved in anything similar to it , I don’t know. There are many possibilities that I could accept.

To me, there are 2 main options, or main branches.

Either Joseph was a liar and practiced something that I believe to be an abomination according to the scriptures and that continued on until 1900s,

Or,

Joseph did not preach or practice what Brigham preached and practice . There are multiple smaller branches of possibilities that sprout from this large branch that I accept as possibly being the truth.

I think like a programmer, and my mind envisions an If- Else statement with nested If-Else statements(I’m sure that’s nonsense to you, but to some that might help explain my thinking) the first condition having one outcome, while the 2nd condition has multiple possible outcomes

I fall into this line of thinking as well. I used to be a staunch believer in polygamy - quoted all the stuff you've quoted, but when I really sat down to think about it and pray about it it was like something just slid into place and it "fit." I never had a dog in the fight so to say I felt it was demanded by God and I supported it. However, after prayer and more research my views shifted. That is why I no longer believe Joseph practiced polygamy the way Brigham practiced it. I do believe that he sealed people to Him, I have no doubt about that, but somehow the form of polygamy the members were taught after his death was twisted or confused or any other myriad of outcomes.

[Benaishtart]

I really think Joseph’s big mistake with polygamy was that he couldn’t figure out or didn’t have the audacity to just go with it. He was the extremely reluctant polygamist to the extant that I don’t even know if they were real wives. Because others were actually commanded to practice plural marriage and started when Joseph was still alive I think he had an idea of how it should’ve been done. I really think members think too binary (we’ve been told that we’re the most binary thinkers in the world, I would expect more of us to become programmers). It’s not just Joseph is some serial adulterer or he’s a lyer. He justifiably lied to protect the innocent and tried his very best to fulfill an excruciatingly hard commandment.

[John Tavner]

I really think Joseph’s big mistake with polygamy was that he couldn’t figure out or didn’t have the audacity to just go with it. He was the extremely reluctant polygamist to the extant that I don’t even know if they were real wives. Because others were actually commanded to practice plural marriage and started when Joseph was still alive I think he had an idea of how it should’ve been done. I really think members think too binary (we’ve been told that we’re the most binary thinkers in the world, I would expect more of us to become programmers). It’s not just Joseph is some serial adulterer or he’s a lyer. He justifiably lied to protect the innocent and tried his very best to fulfill an excruciatingly hard commandment.

From this, it sounds like you believe that Joseph didn't have enough faith to fully implement the Lord's command. The man who communed with Jehovah and translated 1 Nephi 3:7 who knew the Lord would prepare a way, the man who by various accounts was saved by angels, who stood in front of a loaded gun daring it to fire, who had Moroni actually carry the plates for a bit while they were fleeing mobs and robbers. This man, for some reason lost his faith in God (that he would keep His people safe) and was unable to fully do as the Lord commanded? That is interesting to me.

[The Airbender]

I really think Joseph’s big mistake with polygamy was that he couldn’t figure out or didn’t have the audacity to just go with it. He was the extremely reluctant polygamist to the extant that I don’t even know if they were real wives. Because others were actually commanded to practice plural marriage and started when Joseph was still alive I think he had an idea of how it should’ve been done. I really think members think too binary (we’ve been told that we’re the most binary thinkers in the world, I would expect more of us to become programmers). It’s not just Joseph is some serial adulterer or he’s a lyer. He justifiably lied to protect the innocent and tried his very best to fulfill an excruciatingly hard commandment.

From this, it sounds like you believe that Joseph didn't have enough faith to fully implement the Lord's command. The man who communed with Jehovah and translated 1 Nephi 3:7 who knew the Lord would prepare a way, the man who by various accounts was saved by angels, who stood in front of a loaded gun daring it to fire, who had Moroni actually carry the plates for a bit while they were fleeing mobs and robbers. This man, for some reason lost his faith in God (that he would keep His people safe) and was unable to fully do as the Lord commanded? That is interesting to me.

I have had this thought occur to me as well. Why else did an angel appear 3 times, the 3rd time with a sword and threaten to slay Bro Joseph if he weren't a bit reluctant? For fear of Emma, maybe?