Is Exaltation Really A Thing?

[onefour1]

OneFour1 yes that is chronology of it. Thank you.

The only issue is do we play apologist and try to mentally make it fit our preconceived notion?
Or do we let the dates and related events speak for themselves.

Yes it could have been a vision where he saw the future but the prophet did not say that in D&C 132 (1836) and he speaks of Abraham being there was that in the future too? So wouldn't that make it present tense like in the presentation of this particular section?

If Alvin was there in the future that assumes predestination of his choices or Alvin did no growth on the other side of the veil or was perfect in a matter of years. The attempt at his "work" being done was 1840 only 4 years later. This seems more heartsell folklore than reality. None of these explanations make any sense.

What I think it shows is that God knows the end from the beginning. He knows what we all will do with our free will. He can show us visions of the future just as he showed Nephi the mother of the son of God in 1 Nephi 11. God knows how we will use our free will and knew that Adam and Eve would choose to partake of the forbidden fruit before the foundation of the world when he called Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world. So I don't think it is beyond thinking that God could show Joseph a future vision of his brother being in the celestial kingdom knowing that he would accept the gospel and be saved. Alvin died when Joseph was 18 so probably in 1824. That to would have been sufficient time for Alvin to have received the gospel in the world of spirits and simply be waiting for his work to be done here on earth. God gave Joseph a comforting vision of his brother and of the prophet Abraham who practiced polygamy.

[Ymarsakar]

Now that i slept on it, i got a good idea. Since i dont detect malicious intent from good or armchair, and i prefer not to load up on joseph or jakob s own karma burdens, why not just ask them directly via god.

So then let us part the veil here and now.

Yod heh shin vau heh, your people desires to know the truth of these matters. Perhaps you can find a way for us to transfer jakob s experiences to these seekers so that they can obtain a testimony if what it is like to live as joseph smith and jakob

I think they will learn a lot more this way in the eternal progress than just me writing up a storm or 3.

If any others here want to participate be sute to rsvp your god and say you also want the truth of these matters. Exercise your right to know or this cannot start.

Jakob, these descendants of urs and the nephites seem to be having the idea you are talking about 1830s america or the lds red seats. What do you feel about that? If you want to teach them directly here is ur chance. The veil grows thinner for a time.

And joseph smith. What a web is around you. How will you communicate your emotions and thoughts on this matter? Let us see. I at least have given you permission to intercede with our reality. Feel free.

[Luke]

My position????

Factual verifiable content from the 1835, 1844 D&C is now "my position"??

If by “verifiable evidence” you mean something which Joseph Smith actually wrote, it simply doesn’t exist. Joseph had nothing to do with the old Section 101.

...and the facts around section 132...are "my position"???

Not sure what your problem with that phrase is. Of course it’s your position. I didn’t say it was unique to you, but it’s still a position you’re taking.

As far as 132 is concerned, again, there literally are no “facts” in your argument. There is information which you have transformed into speculation as to what happened historically. But the information as a whole stands against you.

I fully expected an admitted fundamentalist would push back...it's so automatic with you.

Of course. What do you think I’m going to do? Sit back and watch godly principles be slandered? Nah mate

[The Red Pill]

My position????

Factual verifiable content from the 1835, 1844 D&C is now "my position"??

If by “verifiable evidence” you mean something which Joseph Smith actually wrote, it simply doesn’t exist. Joseph had nothing to do with the old Section 101.

...and the facts around section 132...are "my position"???

Not sure what your problem with that phrase is. Of course it’s your position. I didn’t say it was unique to you, but it’s still a position you’re taking.

As far as 132 is concerned, again, there literally are no “facts” in your argument. There is information which you have transformed into speculation as to what happened historically. But the information as a whole stands against you.

I fully expected an admitted fundamentalist would push back...it's so automatic with you.

Of course. What do you think I’m going to do? Sit back and watch godly principles be slandered? Nah mate

You can believe in something Luke, but when you resort to deceit in order to make your point...you lose ALL credibility. You said:

"Joseph had nothing to do with the old Section 101".

This is the Preface to the 1835 D&C. Whose name do you see listed FIRST? It's Joseph Smith. The words right above say "we are called to answer to EVERY principle advanced".

Screenshot_20230603_102359_Brave.jpg (164.59 KiB) Viewed 287 times

So we are to believe that Joseph Smith was not aware of what was written in the 1835, 1844 editions of the D&C?? Was not aware of the language in Section 101?? Signed his name on something he didn't approve of??

Your statement is FALSE and deceptive Luke.

Then you say:

"As far as 132 is concerned, again, there literally are no “facts” in your argument"

Let's test that statement...

I said 132 was introduced 8 years after Joseph's death.

Brigham first introduced the wording of Section 132 in a 1852 general conference...8 years after Joseph's death. THATS A FACT.

I said it was not in Joseph's handwriting...that is also an indisputable FACT.

I said it was not in Joseph's writing style. Well...Enid Stubbart DeBarthe of Northern Illinois University did her Masters thesis on that very topic in 1969. Her detailed findings include:

"In light of these findings as to sentence structure, phraseology, and peculiarities of vocabulary, it seems evident that Joseph Smith did NOT write ANY part of the purported revelation on polygamy, known as Section 132."

Again your statement is FALSE and deceptive Luke.

Knock yourself out praising polygamy Luke, but don't resort to deception in order to try and prove your point. Words mean things.

[tmac]

Not that I really have any desire to engage and get sucked into this endless, ad nauseum LDSFF debate, but I am going to make a couple brief, practical, reality-based observations, and let it go at that.

First of all, in terms of discernment and understanding of reality, many here seem to be mushrooms operating in a reality vacuum.

Secondly, the reality is, the world today is a very different place than it was during the time of JS and BY - WW, et al, let alone Jacob in the BoM. At this point the reality is, a rapidly growing number of the upcoming generations would choose a non-productive and non-reproductive same-sex relationship over any kind of productive and reproductive heterosexual relationship, including plural marriage, and that is completely acceptable to the World, and increasingly acceptable to the Church and a majority of its members.

I have a good TBM friend, who was recently visiting the home of his recently divorced daughter and her children, including an eight year-old granddaughter who had just recently been baptized. He saw a big, colorful piece of refrigerator art with this granddaughter’s name on it in their front window, so he was asking his granddaughter about it. She said it was her version of the “Gay Flag.” Taken completely aback, he stuttered and stammered and asked her who had given her that idea, fully expecting to hear something about school or friends, etc., but she replied: “My Mom.” He has been reeling ever since, recognizing that in this world we now live in the younger two generations (40 and younger) hardly stand a fighting chance. The deck is completely stacked against them, and we are seemingly powerless to do very much about it.

Thirdly, and in conclusion, in terms of my own view of the world, and what I genuinely believe God wants (and I genuinely think God feels the same way) I will just say that I would 100 times rather see my/His children and grandchildren (including daughters and granddaughters) in productive and reproductive plural marriage relationships than non-productive and non-reproductive same-sex relationships, which under current world conditions is increasingly what these generations are choosing.

Hopefully that will add a dose of reality to the discussion.

[The Red Pill]

Not that I really have any desire to engage and get sucked into this endless, ad nauseum LDSFF debate, but I am going to make a couple brief, practical, reality-based observations, and let it go at that.

First of all, in terms of discernment and understanding of reality, many here seem to be mushrooms operating in a reality vacuum.

Secondly, the reality is, the world today is a very different place than it was during the time of JS and BY - WW, et al, let alone Jacob in the BoM. At this point the reality is, a rapidly growing number of the upcoming generations would choose a non-productive and non-reproductive same-sex relationship over and kind of productive and reproductive heterosexual relationship of any kind, including plural marriage, and that is completely acceptable to the World, and increasingly acceptable to the Church and a majority of its members.

I have a good TBM friend, who was recently visiting the home of his recently divorced daughter and her children, including an eight year-old granddaughter who had just recently been baptized. He saw a big, colorful piece of refrigerator art with this granddaughter’s name on it in their front window, so he was asking his granddaughter about it. She said it was her version of the “Gay Flag.” Taken completely aback, he stuttered and stammered and asked her who had given her that idea, fully expecting to hear something about school or friends, etc., but she replied: “My Mom.” He has been reeling ever since, recognizing that in this world we now live in the younger two generations (40 and younger) hardly stand a fighting chance. The deck is completely stacked against them, and we are seemingly powerless to do anything about it.

Thirdly, and in conclusion, in terms of my view of the world, and what I genuinely believe God wants, I will just say that I would 100 times rather see (and I genuinely think God feels the same way) my/His children and grandchildren (including daughters and granddaughters) in productive and reproductive plural marriage relationships than non-productive and non-reproductive same-sex relationships, which under current world conditions is increasingly what these generations are choosing.

Hopefully that will add a dose of reality to the discussion.

No...it didn't introduce reality into the discussion.

It did introduce your feelings and opinions though.

[tmac]

So, you’re completely ignoring the factual reality that a rapidly growing number of the younger generations are choosing non-productive and non-reproductive same-sex relationships and lifestyles over productive and reproductive heterosexual relationships and lifestyles?

Like I said, mushrooms operating in a realty vacuum are very abundant. I’ll let it go at that.

[Ymarsakar]

Like I said, mushrooms operating in a realty vacuum are very abundant. I’ll let it go at that.

Thr apocalypse will make most of this obsolete but since people wanted to know, i opened the way. This seems like a very long karma thing however for lds folks.

Before exaltation is a thing, people need to first figure out jakob and j smith.

[The Red Pill]

Like I said, mushrooms operating in a realty vacuum are very abundant. I’ll let it go at that.

Other than your personal observations, feelings and opinions...just what reality did you bring forth???

You point fingers at others, but fail to analyze your own writings for what you accuse others of doing.

[Ymarsakar]

It was a useful summary. Sometimes it is not necessary for the holy spirit to take sides.

Instead a portal will open in each person s life. U just need to open the door and welcome the opportunity.

Like I said, mushrooms operating in a realty vacuum are very abundant. I’ll let it go at that.

Other than your personal observations, feelings and opinions...just what reality did you bring forth???

You point fingers at others, but fail to analyze your own writings for what you accuse others of doing.

[tmac]

Like I said, mushrooms operating in a realty vacuum are very abundant. I’ll let it go at that.

Other than your personal observations, feelings and opinions...just what reality did you bring forth???

You point fingers at others, but fail to analyze your own writings for what you accuse others of doing.

Again, the factual reality that a rapidly growing number of the younger generations are choosing non-productive and non-reproductive same-sex relationships and lifestyles over productive and reproductive heterosexual relationships and lifestyles?

Are you a parent? Grandparent? You don’t see what is very obviously happening? How old are you?

The other fully recognized reality is that it is not possible for any party to a controversy to be an impartial arbiter of the issue(s) in question. Consequently, if you are under 40, you are not capable of an unbiased assessment of these issues. The record will ultimately speak for itself.

[The Red Pill]

Like I said, mushrooms operating in a realty vacuum are very abundant. I’ll let it go at that.

Other than your personal observations, feelings and opinions...just what reality did you bring forth???

You point fingers at others, but fail to analyze your own writings for what you accuse others of doing.

Are you a parent? Grandparent? How old are you? The other fully recognized reality is that it is not possible for any party to a controversy to be an impartial arbiter of the issue(s) in question. Consequently, if you are under 40, you are not capable of an unbiased assessment of these issues. The record will ultimately speak for itself.

Not that it is any of your business, nor do I agree with your under 40s arbitrary thesis...

But I am a parent and grandparent. It is not your years on earth, but rather your education, understanding of the world and events in history...and the wisdom to discern the truth from the BS.

My 23 year old daughter understands what's going on much more than my 80 year old father in law.

[tmac]

So, in terms of the factual reality that you are attempting to dispute, do you deny/dispute that a rapidly growing number of the younger generations are choosing non-productive and non-reproductive same-sex relationships and lifestyles over productive and reproductive heterosexual relationships and lifestyles? If so, what is the evidentiary basis for your position?

[Ymarsakar]

The sons of god dont reckon our level based on mortal age. M0st 9f em self identitfy as eternal

So much ageism heh. It works for a human civ perhaps.

Like I said, mushrooms operating in a realty vacuum are very abundant. I’ll let it go at that.

Other than your personal observations, feelings and opinions...just what reality did you bring forth???

You point fingers at others, but fail to analyze your own writings for what you accuse others of doing.

Are you a parent? Grandparent? How old are you? The other fully recognized reality is that it is not possible for any party to a controversy to be an impartial arbiter of the issue(s) in question. Consequently, if you are under 40, you are not capable of an unbiased assessment of these issues. The record will ultimately speak for itself.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Not that I really have any desire to engage and get sucked into this endless, ad nauseum LDSFF debate, but I am going to make a couple brief, practical, reality-based observations, and let it go at that.

First of all, in terms of discernment and understanding of reality, many here seem to be mushrooms operating in a reality vacuum.

Secondly, the reality is, the world today is a very different place than it was during the time of JS and BY - WW, et al, let alone Jacob in the BoM. At this point the reality is, a rapidly growing number of the upcoming generations would choose a non-productive and non-reproductive same-sex relationship over any kind of productive and reproductive heterosexual relationship, including plural marriage, and that is completely acceptable to the World, and increasingly acceptable to the Church and a majority of its members.

I have a good TBM friend, who was recently visiting the home of his recently divorced daughter and her children, including an eight year-old granddaughter who had just recently been baptized. He saw a big, colorful piece of refrigerator art with this granddaughter’s name on it in their front window, so he was asking his granddaughter about it. She said it was her version of the “Gay Flag.” Taken completely aback, he stuttered and stammered and asked her who had given her that idea, fully expecting to hear something about school or friends, etc., but she replied: “My Mom.” He has been reeling ever since, recognizing that in this world we now live in the younger two generations (40 and younger) hardly stand a fighting chance. The deck is completely stacked against them, and we are seemingly powerless to do very much about it.

Thirdly, and in conclusion, in terms of my own view of the world, and what I genuinely believe God wants (and I genuinely think God feels the same way) I will just say that I would 100 times rather see my/His children and grandchildren (including daughters and granddaughters) in productive and reproductive plural marriage relationships than non-productive and non-reproductive same-sex relationships, which under current world conditions is increasingly what these generations are choosing.

Hopefully that will add a dose of reality to the discussion.

If the premise with this line of thinking is that we live in a different culturally sick LGBTQ ridden reality today compared to 1840, where gay marriage, and transgender values are winning the day, then its not wrong to make the comparison that in the days of Joseph Smith, polygamy was considered adultery, evil, and barbaric by those who were presented with the practice in Nauvoo. You can even make the argument that polygamy in 1840 was a much graver sin, a much more abhorrent behavior, and religiously and ideologically more evil, than the polygamist (or even LGBTQ) behaviors of today's world where the sexual revolution has created a world view where "anything goes".

Polygamy was advanced in the LDS church in a time when it was a deviant behavior of the worst kind. It was considered adultery by those to whom it was presented by Jospeh Smith and others. Their own journal entires and public statements describe their view of it as being deviant, abhorrent and adulterous. Some have suggested that it was not adultery because it was authorized by Joseph Smith via a revelation from God. Regardless if that's true or not, those who were confronted with the practice in Nauvoo wrote over and over again of the adulterous nature of the practice.

If it walks like an adulterous pig, and talks like an adulterous pig, then, at least for those who lived in Nauvoo, it was an adulterous pig.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

One additional point on this matter: if you view polygamy and LGBTQ behaviors through the lens of reproduction and sexual pleasures, then the whole point of "commandments" may be overlooked.

If you examine commandments, all of them, including the one about committing adultery, are about how we treat others. Taking advantage of others is outlawed by commandments. There isn't one that doesn't have to do with our interactions with others. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. They all come from a God who is grounded in how we treat others.

When we limit the polygamy and LGBTQ discussion to procreation and reproduction, we reduce it to an exercise in biology. The difference between biology and religion is that biology is focused on anatomical and physiological outcomes whereas religion, and specifically Christianity, is focused on the Hebrew meaning of the word HEART: your motivations--why you do what you do. Commandments are about highlighting the human interactions that grow out of a pure heart. How we treat others.

LDS polygamy is filled with story after story of unhappy women, mistreated, and caught up in relationships where they suffered abuse. The words of Jacob couldn't be more prescient--that polygamy will break the hearts of the women and children it touches.

I think we may miss the point of the polygamy discussion if it's focused primarily on biology and not on Christianity. The call to multiply and replenish the world came with specific criteria in order to make sure that the hearts of all parties---how we treat each other---never devolved into selfish pleasure seeking behaviors, but instead, enobled the heart and treated all with respect. Those pleasure seeking abbhorant behaviors are found in Polygamy and in LGBTQ lifestyles. They seem to be more closely associated with deviant, evil, and ungodly behaviors than with godly ones.

[Good & Global]

Polygamy was advanced in the LDS church in a time when it was a deviant behavior of the worst kind. It was considered adultery by those to whom it was presented by Jospeh Smith and others. Their own journal entires and public statements describe their view of it as being deviant, abhorrent and adulterous. Some have suggested that it was not adultery because it was authorized by Joseph Smith via a revelation from God. Regardless if that's true or not, those who were confronted with the practice in Nauvoo wrote over and over again of the adulterous nature of the practice.

If it walks like an adulterous pig, and talks like an adulterous pig, then, at least for those who lived in Nauvoo, it was an adulterous pig.

Ok you diverted my interest in how egregious this was by appealing to my natural man nature.

Now I am thinking of adulterous bacon.

But seriously adultery and polygamous adultery probably was one of the more apprehensible things you could do in society back then (until the pedophile agenda said hold my Bud Light)

[TheDuke]

So, it this a thread about polygamy or exaltation? The OP asks if exaltation is a real thing. The answer is "YES". I should be decoupled from polygamy for discussion as there are few if any that can really comprehend the concepts of eternal marriage anyway. So, yes. There is exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Joseph taught it clearly in 1840's in this dispensation. It the process that progresses a person from entry level celestial (joint heir with Christ) to being endowed with power of godliness (becoming like god, not just living with him and singing in some choirs), to the point of becoming god or bringing eternal life into existence with your eternal partner and then working to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of your offspring.

[TheDuke]

BTW I will add that I have a clear testimony of exaltation. There are a few very clear revelations that I have received by word from the Lord, versus general feelings and regular spiritual confirmation in my soul. that includes the Lord commanding me (well just flat telling me, didn't feel like a commandment) to take my wife and be sealed to her as a companion for eternity. He did this, as I have stated before, three times. I balked twice with excuses for my own personal reasons; then accepted his command/admonition/direction (not sure what word best fits). To complete the miracle and revelation, I had just told my wife that I intended to fulfill my covenants with my ex--wife (if and when she would ever return to our covenants) and she was, well lets say, less than happy with me. She had never believed in exaltation being still as much Catholic as Mormon and hating the idea of plural wives and such... Anyway she had just told me she wasn't ever going to be interested in being a "concubine", her term at the time. Yet immediately after the Lord told me to take her as my eternal partner, I called her at work and told her what the Lord told me and she said "yes" as the Lord told her to be sealed to me, while she brooded in her "agony" of my proclamation of remaining in my current and former covenants until released by the Lord.

In summary, I had direct communion with the Lord about exaltation and so did my wife; at the same exact time in two distant (well 12 miles) locations; and we both fell into eternal love; at the exact time that she was the most despondent she could be over my concern for my family and the mother of my own children. Of course she is sure my former spouse hates me and isn't and never will be a concern, and she may be correct, but to obtain exaltation, even with my current wife the Lord also clearly told me that I must live my covenants with my former as best as I can even as she despises me as the covenants I made are for eternity and only he can terminate them, and he hasn't to this point done that. So, I try to honor my covenants even in the face of severe agony, hoping at the very least that my children will eventually accept the option of remaining with me, even in the face of the failure of my partnership with their mother.

Complex way of describing the not so clean or happy but beautiful revelations and extra-personal confirmations that both exaltation is real and that despite the LDS leader's flaws the keys are valid for performing the exalting ordinances of being endowed with the powers of god and eternal or celestial marriage.

[Arm Chair Quarterback]

Either exaltation is a thing or its not. Was this a doctrine of the restoration or an amalgamation of cool religious ideas? Did God tell Jospeh Smith to restore the doctrine of exaltation, or is this yet another example of Joseph picking and choosing religious ideas that serve his purposes, sound interesting, have merit, or have a novel newness that's worthy of a new church? More critically, is exaltation an eternal reward used to manipulate people?

The salvation promised by Jesus sounds great. The super plus bonus of exaltation---which isn't something that Jesus does for you, but instead its something you have to earn by your allegiance, behavior, commitment and acceptance of doctrines restored by Jospeh Smith--is glorious, until it isn't.

Exaltation is a doctrine that, in its grandiose promises for the next life, enthralls the soul. Joseph never had to deliver on the promise of exaltation in this life. Obey. Submit. Commit. Follow orders. Be a good citizen of Nauvoo. And above all, don't cross Joseph (ask Oliver Cowdrey, Sidney Rigdon and William Law about that). Then, in the next life, you will have earned exaltation.

Exaltation is something not even Jesus promised his followers. He said by my grace you will be saved. Joseph Smith said by your obedience you will be exalted. The only investment Joseph had to make was to describe exaltation in glowing, glorious, magnificent, and holy terms. And people signed up to follow Joseph with gusto.

Is exaltation a thing or was it a bone used to coerce members?

You can't answer that question by exclusively citing quotations from Joseph Smith. If he created exaltation out of whole cloth, his writings and revelations would be rightly littered with references to exaltation. You have to step outside those revelations in order to recognize a pattern of behavior.

Is there a pattern in the life of Joseph Smith where he repeatedly made "next life" promises to people in order to manipulate them? The answer is yes. Over and over again. Beginning with his treasure hunting days. That's a problem when it comes to the doctrine of exaltation.

Is this doctrine from God or is it an invention of Joseph Smith to coerce behavior and demand allegiance?

[Ymarsakar]

Let us know when god resurrects joseoh and answers ur q.

Be sure to mail them to the godhead in the heavens if ubwant an answer bte

Either exaltation is a thing or its not. Was this a doctrine of the restoration or an amalgamation of cool religious ideas? Did God tell Jospeh Smith to restore the doctrine of exaltation, or is this yet another example of Joseph picking and choosing religious ideas that serve his purposes, sound interesting, have merit, or have a novel newness that's worthy of a new church? More critically, is exaltation an eternal reward used to manipulate people?

The salvation promised by Jesus sounds great. The super plus bonus of exaltation---which isn't something that Jesus does for you, but instead its something you have to earn by your allegiance, behavior, commitment and acceptance of doctrines restored by Jospeh Smith--is glorious, until it isn't.

Exaltation is a doctrine that, in its grandiose promises for the next life, enthralls the soul. Joseph never had to deliver on the promise of exaltation in this life. Obey. Submit. Commit. Follow orders. Be a good citizen of Nauvoo. And above all, don't cross Joseph (ask Oliver Cowdrey, Sidney Rigdon and William Law about that). Then, in the next life, you will have earned exaltation.

Exaltation is something not even Jesus promised his followers. He said by my grace you will be saved. Joseph Smith said by your obedience you will be exalted. The only investment Joseph had to make was to describe exaltation in glowing, glorious, magnificent, and holy terms. And people signed up to follow Joseph with gusto.

Is exaltation a thing or was it a bone used to coerce members?

You can't answer that question by exclusively citing quotations from Joseph Smith. If he created exaltation out of whole cloth, his writings and revelations would be rightly littered with references to exaltation. You have to step outside those revelations in order to recognize a pattern of behavior.

Is there a pattern in the life of Joseph Smith where he repeatedly made "next life" promises to people in order to manipulate them? The answer is yes. Over and over again. Beginning with his treasure hunting days. That's a problem when it comes to the doctrine of exaltation.

Is this doctrine from God or is it an invention of Joseph Smith to coerce behavior and demand allegiance?

[Obeone]

Exaltation became something you earned by your practice of polygamy. Does that not seem odd to anyone else but me?

No. In fact it makes perfect sense. To have one wife is hard enough. But to deal with many, you HAVE to be a saint.
So also for a woman: to put up with your husband having other wives, you HAVE to be a saint.

God planned it and commanded it for this very purpose, because He is in the business of making saints and Gods. And if you cannot handle it you do not deserve the celestial kingdom.

Now we have it easy, because we as a church not yet ready for it. But when Zion is redeemed and New Jerusalem built, this is coming back big time!

Get ready, or get out of the way.

[tmac]

Well said.

Like it or not, soft, easy times make for weak men (and women) — which is where we are now. Weak men (and women) make for hard times — which is where we’re headed. Hard times make for strong men (and women), which is what is required to become saints and gods. And so the cycle goes.

God knows what is required to make saints and gods, and it ain’t soft, easy times. True, plural marriage isn’t easy. Neither is the Law of Consecration. Many fail. Most don’t even try. God’s telestial children have repeatedly rejected the higher laws. Human nature and the natural man are very strong, and can’t seem to be overcome by most.

I agree, get ready or get out of the way, and just roll-over, capitulate, and let the world have its way, to usher in a major cleansing.

[Ymarsakar]

This is all mixed up. Joseph and brigham has their work cut out here.

The future communities will have poly amory, monogamy, serial partners or some type of plural male and female marriages per community. They will not conflict because nobody will have power to enforce their will on other communities.

There is also a conflation of ancient legalized rape that is concubinage vs consensual relationships vs some other stuff. Fix and define terms first.

[Alexander]

Here's what the Book of Mormon actually really teaches about polygamy.

Jacob 2:30
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things"

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/ ... t-polygamy

Polygamy is not abominable nor is it adultery when authorized by God.

You've got some grammatical hiccups in your interpretation:

1. "For" is not adversative; it doesn’t mean "however" or “but”
2. There’s no to-infinitive clause anywhere stating that God will command his people to practice polygamy ; there's no particle "to" after the phrase "command my people"
3. The Nephites were already commanded to raise up seed in the land of promise in 1 Nephi 7:1