All Activity

What a story, so many men clamoring for her when she was fifteen years old, and she seems to be especially perceptive as she's rebuffing them -- to think that as a fifteen year old girl she wasn't intimidated by all of these men who are so much older than her. What is the name of her autobiography?

Talking about how the Cornell case relates to rape culture and not all men is not the same topic that needs one to analyze timelines, etc, to prove truth or falseness of accusations. In fact, it comes across as avoiding the original topics to me at this point, though I suspect the reality is people just got distracted. I think they are interrelated. The rush to judgment in the Cornell matter, the inversion of the presumption of innocence, the generalized disregard or selective assessment of the evidence are all arguably perpetuations of the "all men are potential rapists" sentiment you and others have been endorsing for years. "All men are potential rapists," so an accusation alone is sufficient to validate that presumption. "All men are potential rapists," so we are free to disregard or invert the presumption of innocence and mobocratic rush to judgment. "All men are potential rapists," so we don't need to dispassionately examine the evidence. And so on. True. I am just curious why you see this as a thread topic that holds any relevance to the board. Asked and answered. Yeah….somehow that feels like this is justifying gossip, etc. My focus has been on attempting to dispassionately examine the evidence in a widely-reported story involving allegations of sexual assault. This includes evaluating Jane Doe's allegations in her voluntary and sworn statement to law enforcement in 2024. That is not "justifying gossip." This includes evaluating Jane Doe's allegations in her 2026 civil lawsuit. That is not "justifying gossip." This includes evaluating the text messages (to/from Jane Doe and some of the frat members, to/from Jane Doe and her roommate, to/from the frat members to each other). That is not "justifying gossip." This includes examining the published responses from the accused (the denials, defenses, the claim of exculpatory forensic evidence as to one of the accused, etc.). That is not "justifying gossip." If you want to call your own participation in the discussion "gossip," feel free. I don't think I'll do the same. I'd like to see that. But does that sentence apply to Jane Doe (who, by her own 2024 account, consented to the sexual contact that night)? Or is it just the "potential rapists" who are aptly described by it? Moreover, the issue is more than about sexually licentious behavior. The allegations are about sexual assault, which are serious and deserve some real examination. But that doesn’t lead to a need to actually demonstrate what you think is a dispassionate assessment of evidence. We are all here voluntarily. There is no "need" for any of us to say anything about any topic at all. Thanks, -Smac

All this, I have polygamy in my heritage and it was something those who were commanded to do it put up with without much enthusiasm and they treated it as a requirement for exaltation. So……frustrating which is bad but not nearly as bad as the way it was turning adult men into sex pests about literal children as SU says. The “it was never mandatory” apologetic requires ignoring the reality of reported experience.

These types of posts always trigger me. So I have polygamous ancestors everywhere in my family tree. I found out recently on this board that Lorena Washburn (my gg-grandma) was featured extensively in church publications. She wrote an autobiography. Lorena was one of 8 children born to a second wife. She wrote: Further she spoke of the sacrifice entailed: Her son BF Larson (who was well educated and led the fine arts school at BYU) later recalled: Three of the four girls in Lorena's family became plural wifes. None of the boys did. This just highlights the impossibility of the commandment. There was certainly no shortage of men trying though to indicate there was some high bar you had to pass. Lorena records being courted by countless married individuals started as young as six or eight: Here are more proposals: Another a week later: She writes of more but one of note. A young man she turned down as a first wife later came back to ask her to be her second: There doesn't seem to be any shortage of men approved for a second wife, rather there is a shortage of women available to be plural wives. And just because not everyone makes it to the " into the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom" doesn't mean it wasn't taught and understood at the time that plural marriage was the requirement to gain entry there.

No, JUST NO! Also it has not been established that everyone was equally ‘blotto’. Also it has not been established that the sexual conduct on that night 2 years ago was nonconsensual. Perhaps some of it was and other parts was not. Perhaps, then, we ought to examine the evidence rather than rush to judgment. As it happens, one of the primary sources for the idea that the frat members were inebriated is . . . Jane Doe. According to her own 2024 sworn statement to Cornell police (and consistent details in contemporaneous reporting), she described the men as intoxicated and high on ketamine. Key points from her account (primarily the six-page voluntary statement she reviewed, edited, and signed under penalty of perjury): The night involved heavy drinking and ketamine use by the group. She described snorting ketamine off the men’s bodies (and vice versa), including one instance of snorting it off a man’s genitals. (Interestingly, there may be forensic evidence that rebuts this allegation as to one of the accused). Specific men were heavily impaired: one passed out and later said he wanted sex again for “redemption” after passing out earlier; another was dry-heaving / struggling not to vomit. She characterized the overall scene as involving men who were sufficiently intoxicated that some had trouble staying conscious, while she herself rated her intoxication at various points as a 5–6 out of 10 early on and later as high as an 8 out of 10 (“the most intoxicated I’ve ever been”). She and the men were described as jointly using ketamine and alcohol during the encounters. Her later civil lawsuit emphasizes her own incapacitation and claims of pressure/coercion more strongly, while her contemporaneous police statement portrays a drug- and alcohol-fueled night in which both she and the men were using substances and were impaired. The men have generally denied wrongdoing and described any sexual contact as consensual. That's the allegation, yes. Jane Doe's 2024 statement seems to merit some attention. "Alleged perpetrators." I am glad to see you using this terminology. Truly. If they are innocent of rape, then I would want their reputations restored as to that point, yes. As to their sexually licentious behaviors? I think besmirched reputations have already happened there. I am curious if you think sexually licentious persons should have their reputations destroyed because of that behavior. You, earlier in this thread: "Seriously, I am a full blown pervert but you can do much more taboo stuff with consent from all involved and have a lot more fun." Pervert: "A person whose sexual behavior or desires are considered abnormal, obsessive, or socially unacceptable." I think the better way is for individuals to change themselves through faith, repentance, and morally upright conduct. As it is, though, there are folks inverting the presumption of innocence, and are not dispassionately examining the evidence, and are instead rushing to judgment based on mobocratic rage. I think sexual licentiousness is a terrible thing. I would hope that individuals indulging in it would stop, reconsider their behavior, repent, and proceed to live virtuous lives. Those who continue in licentiousness run the very real risk of doing harm to their reputation and standing in society. Or not, since licentiousness is, in many quarters, endorsed and celebrated. In the end, I think we should each focus less about social standing and more about our standing before "the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead" (Moroni 10:34). “For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts" (D&C 137:9). Social opprobrium can, I suppose, have some utility. Directed against sexual assault, and perhaps also against sexual licentiousness. It is. However, I think there are legitimate distinctions between sexual licentiousness and sexual assault. All are depraved and unhealthy and wrong, but the latter is - in my view - more serious because of its nonconsensual aspect. Thanks, -Smac

FWIW Dan explains why he is a full tithe payer: https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2026/10/20/why-i-tithe/

No. The Lindsay Clancy jury nearly acquitted her. Had that happened, I don't think we would be "morally bound" to accept such a travesty of justice. Similarly, I think we all know O.J. did it. We were not "morally bound" to accept the verdict that let him go free. Casey Anthony. The Rodney King officers. Acquiescing to problematic verdicts is not my point. Dispassionately reviewing the evidence is my point. I think any agreement or disagreement with a verdict should be based on the evidence and a dispassionate assessment thereof. Here, I don't see anything close to that. I see, instead, a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence. I agree. What I don't see, though, is evidence of "well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone." I see, instead, a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence. I agree. But "support the system" does not mean we uncritically endorse every decision it makes. Mistakes can happen. Here, though, what I see at present on this thread is a rage-based rush to judgment, a substantial disregard of the evidence (and/or a problematically selective and partial assessment of it), and a stark inversion of the presumption of innocence. I agree. We are also not under any personal obligation to reflexively and uncritically accept or reject serious accusations. We should examine the evidence and develop - as you put it - "well thought out and considered opinions of the guilt or innocence of someone." I don't see that happening on this thread. Instead, what I see is . . . well, you know. I am curious. Are you saying we should not base our assessment on the evidence? If so, then upon what should our assessment be based? We do have other options to non-evidence-based assessments, I guess: political considerations, "identity"-based affiliations and sympathies and antipathies, mobocratic rage, rushes to judgment, arbitrarily disregarding or inverting the presumption of innocence, prejudice. None of these is good, IMO. Assessing the evidence, dispassionately, is better. None of us is perfect at this. We all have our emotions and biases and subjective preferences. For example, I really love the Church and am quite partial to it. And yet years ago, while I was in law school, my initial assessment of the Main Street Plaza dispute was reflexively in favor of the Church. However, as the case progressed, I came to see the merits of the legal arguments against SLC's agreement with the Church. When the 10th Circuit's decision came out, I reviewed it and found it to be substantially correct. Both the facts and the law were not on the side of the Church on that one. I've said this, or something like it, a few times: I have no affinity with the frat members accused of misconduct. There is no "blood is thicker than water" sentiment or comradery because I share their biological sex. I don't know any of them or have any personal connection with them. Nor is there particularized affinity with or presumptive antipathy toward Jane Doe, either. I don't know her or have any connection to her either. The presumption I do hold, however, is the presumption of innocence. It is foundational for several interlocking reasons. As a legal principle: It requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before imposing punishment. The accused starts free of the stigma and consequences of a conviction; the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove innocence. This protects against conviction on weak, incomplete, or contested evidence and reduces the risk of punishing the innocent—an outcome that is irreversible and far more damaging than letting a guilty person go free in a given case. As a component of a high-trust society: It underwrites the expectation that ordinary people will be treated as free and not under permanent suspicion. When the default is innocence rather than guilt, social and economic life can proceed with less fear that an accusation alone will destroy reputation, livelihood, or liberty. That baseline trust makes cooperation, commerce, and voluntary association easier; a society that routinely treats accusation as sufficient tends toward suspicion, self-censorship, and fragmentation. As a constraint on state power: It limits the state’s ability to punish on the basis of its own assertion or convenience. By forcing the government to meet a high evidentiary standard in an adversarial process, it checks arbitrary or politically motivated prosecutions, reduces the leverage of officials over private citizens, and preserves the idea that the individual is free unless and until the state affirmatively proves otherwise. Without it, the coercive power of the state expands dramatically and the practical difference between accusation and conviction shrinks. I am troubled by what seems to be common and widespread licentious behaviors, both as to sexual conduct and recreational use of mind-altering substances. The inculpatory evidence published so far is, in my view, fairly poor. We have the group text shared by the frat members, but that can be reasonably interpreted in ways other than an invitation to join in sexual assault of an incapacitated woman. We have Jane Doe's claims, but we also have contravening evidence - including her own statements. Thanks, -Smac

That's understandable, as he only talks about it for a couple of minutes and doesn't go into any detail. I wouldn't have become convinced by the two minutes that he touches on it either. If you don't find the argument even half-way plausible, I would encourage reading Historical Monogamy Doctrine, as that has quickly-readable sections and actual proper layout for information intake. (Monogamy as Divine Design is great too, but it doesn't talk about Joseph Smith so much.) Even if you don't end up being convinced by the sites, they would still be helpful to you to read to understand the viewpoint of those of us who have converted to the other side, as opposed to thinking, "They must all just be collectively delusional" (as I thought when I first heard about it.) There are more and more of us Mormons who are coming to believe in Joseph's monogamy as time goes on, so you might like to see what's going on inside our heads: Historical Monogamy Doctrine

This both begs the question and, in my view, is not based on a dispassionate view of the evidence. I think we need to examine the evidence. It has. If she was assaulted, she deserves every measure of support and understanding. Again: "A terrible story. I hope those found guilty, if any, are punished to the fullest extent the law." "I am looking at the text messages, and then once again be revolted at the vulgarity and licentiousness that seems to be a chronic and systemic element of the Greek System, and of Hookup Culture in general." "To be sure, the texts are repulsive. Group sex advertised like a commodity." "While I was in the Army I stopped what looked like an attempted sexual assault. As a missionary I confronted and stopped a drunk guy who was kicking his wife while she lay curled up on the sidewalk. I did something." "If {online commentators are calling Jane Doe a 'whore' and saying 'she wanted it'}, this is appalling." "{I} 100% agree {that nothing a women does ever gives permission to have sex with her without her consent}." If she was not assaulted, if she is making false accusations, then the risk of serious adverse consequences is fairly small. Again: One year. Heidi Jones pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of filing a false report. She got three years of probation and 350 hours of community service, matched to the hours the police spent on the case, and she lost the WABC job. No jail. Tawana Brawley totally got away with her false accusations. A grand jury found the story fabricated. She was not prosecuted. Crystal Mangum also got away with it. The Attorney General declared the players innocent in 2007. She was not charged for the false report. (FYI, she is currently in prison for stabbing her boyfriend to death in 2011. She admitted the Duke story was false in 2024, from that prison.) Wanetta Gibson got away with it. She was never charged. Prosecutors said a case would be hard to prove because she was a juvenile at the time and would not formally repeat the recantation. "Jackie," the accuser in the Rolling Stone article, was not charged. Danmell Ndonye got away with it. The Nassau County District Attorney declined to charge her. The condition was counseling and 250 hours of community service, Biurny Peguero pleaded guilty to perjury in 2009 and was sentenced to one to three years. Nikki Yovino pleaded guilty to falsely reporting an incident and was sentenced in 2018 to a year in jail. Thanks, -Smac

I listened and am not convinced. I don’t find the argument plausible.

Do you mean 1882? Or 1884? Do you mean 1883?

I summarized everything that he said relating to the topic, but you can listen from 2:36:00 to hear his words specifically on how he first came to believe that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy. His study of Section 132 and sharing it with his family only came after he had first become convinced that Joseph didn't practice it.

God specifically says in the D&C that "no man" needs to break the lands of the land that the Saints were living under at the time. Monogamy as Divine Design expounds on this too! (They're really great sites, I really recommend reading them.) These are the specific sections in question, they're situated right next to eachother on the website: MDD 7. 'Couldn't the practice of polygamy still have been given to Brigham Young as a temporary commandment?' One talk in the October 2024 General Conference contained this quote, The Lord’s commandments are of two types: permanent, like the doctrine of Christ, and temporary. Temporary commandments are those necessary for the needs of the Lord’s Church or the faithful in temporary circumstances, but to be set aside when the need has passed. An example of temporary commandments are the Lord’s directions to the early leadership of the Church to move the Saints from New York to Ohio, to Missouri, and to Illinois... Dallin H. Oaks, October 2024 General Conference Some have argued this to be the case for early Mormon polygamy — that it was a temporary commandment, meant to be followed for only a set period of time before being discontinued. But this assertion does not align with an exegetical reading of D&C 132, as the text does not leave itself open to be viewed as a temporary commandment when it reads, "all those who have this law revealed to them must obey the same." (D&C 132:3) Another issue with applying a commandment to "move the Saints" with a practice like polygamy is that moving homes doesn't break any previously-established commandments, whereas polygamy will always break the previously-given commandment to have only one wife. A "temporary commandment" cannot be morally described as such if it is something that breaks a permanent commandment. MDD 8. 'But the Spirit told Nephi to kill Laban, which was against the commandment to not kill.' Nephi's actions of killing Laban qualified as self defense (and defense of others), even under the conditions of the law of Moses and the law of the land of his time, as Laban was actively seeking to kill Nephi and his brothers. That Laban had already given the orders to kill Nephi (and had even sent his men out to fulfill those orders) justified Nephi under the law to take the actions against Laban that he did. Laban had also stolen Nephi's family's property by force, meaning Nephi was then justified to take Laban's brass plates by the law of Moses "eye for an eye" reasoning of recovering property of an equal or lesser value. It is significant that the Lord did not deliver Laban into Nephi's hands until the conditions had been met that Nephi would be morally justified in taking the plates for his family. Nephi did not violate any law of God or law of the land by killing Laban or taking his plates, and the Lord from the outset orchestrated it to be so. However, these conditions of self defense did not apply to Mormon polygamy, and cannot apply to polygamy in any circumstance. There is no scenario in which a Mormon man has to practice polygamy as a means of self defense. Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

Section 132 is definitely filled with problems but that is not evidence for Joseph Smith practicing or not practicing polygamy.

? Whether someone thinks there will be zero cases of eternal polygamy (neither polyandry nor polygyny), or whether someone thinks there will only be selective cases of eternal polyandry/polygyny (from certain remarried widows/widowers. The HMD sites themselves don't strictly argue as to whether there will be no instances of them or only select instances of them. I have my own personal opinion on it of course) it still yet remains that in either scenario, there is no polygamy doctrine being taught as being a commandment by God for anyone to live either for this life or the next, and is being taught that God expressly forbids it in any form for this life. Also ?

This section is referencing the directly preceding sections of the same website, as well as referencing the first website too. The second website (Monogamy as Divine Design) has multiple sections (all previous to this one) that individually address each aspect. The sections of the websites are intended to be read all together in numerical order. It would rather be too much however for me to copy and paste 15+ sections into one comment in order to show you all the info it is referencing.

We also have the canonized scripture, the excommunications and the court cases to consider: HMD 5. 'Couldn't that have been empty language that was used to protect himself?' Joseph Smith went beyond merely speaking out against polygamy. In 1835 he included monogamy in the Doctrine & Covenants as the law of marriage in the church (the original Section 101.) He also excommunicated men in the church for having practiced and taught it (John Bennet, Francis M. Higbee, Chauncey Higbee, Hirum Brown, Harrison Sagers) and acted to sue one of the same men in court (Chauncey Higbee) for slander for stating that Joseph was teaching it in private. He also had church members write affidavits swearing to his innocence during his preparations for the trial. HMD 6. 'Weren’t his public actions against polygamy in part because of Emma?' The idea that Joseph was hiding his polygamy due to Emma’s opposition and bad temper was first reportedly taught by lawyer Chauncey Higbee, and Joseph and Emma together acted to sue him in court for defamation over this teaching: “…one Chancy [sic] L. Higbee has slandered and defamed the character of the said Joseph Smith, and also the character of Emma Smith, his wife, in using their names, the more readily to accomplish his purpose in seducing certain females, and further this deponont [sic] saith not.” Complaint, 24 May 1842 [State of Illinois v. C. L. Higbee] That Joseph made motion to sue a lawyer for defamation, in a state where polygamy of any kind was illegal, is significant — If Chauncey Higbee had any evidence to show that Joseph Smith was in fact practicing polygamy, even with one woman, then not only would the case against Chauncey have been lost but Joseph would then be exposed and brought under punishment of the law himself, for a considerably more serious crime than defamation. Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine When Hyrum was accused of polygamy, he made complaint to the city, trial was held, and the man was found guilty of slander and charged $50 and costs (HMD section 10) Section 101 was included by Joseph in the selection of sections for both editions of the D&C, and it wasn't the only pro-monogamy scripture either: HMD 19 ~ Section 132 is contradicted by other parts of the Doctrine & Covenants ~ Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else D&C 42:22 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; D&C 49:16 Both of these sections were included by Joseph Smith in both the first and second editions of the Doctrine & Covenants. Those who argue that polygamy is a "higher law" or a "restoration of all things" forget that D&C 49:16 states that the earth has answered "the end of its creation" by having one wife to one husband. "Twain" means "two". Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

We have scriptures where prophets disobey laws (famous case is Daniel praying when it is against the rules). We have scriptures where God commands someone to go against His previous commandments (famous case is Nephi being commanded to kill). I don't get this type of argument. Why is marriage/polygamy "special" when we have many other scriptures showing God can command things to be different. If God did command Joseph to practice polygamy, then I don't see how this argument matters.

So you are ok with polygamy? And you do accept that Joseph did teach polygamy?

Notice how your source cites 0 sources? How do I know that the website just made this all up?

We don't have doctrinal precedence for the idea of God "changing" an oath someone has made, especially not to the point of it being such a complete contradiction that the initial oath is broken — and remember, a marital vow wasn't an oath just made to your wife and to God, but was also a legal contract to the state itself, which polygamy was an irreconcilable violation of. There's this point made in Historical Monogamy Doctrine: HMD 36 ~ The 'angel with a drawn sword' story is contradicted by both the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price ~ Polygamy, whether called spiritual wifery, plural marriage, or by any other term, was not lawful during Joseph Smith's life and fell under the legal definition of adultery or bigamy, which in some cases was a serious enough offense to lead to legal charges and fines. The Lord in D&C 58:21 states, Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. Joseph Smith included Section 58 in both the first and the second edition selections of the Doctrine and Covenants. In The Articles of Faith, the list of twelve basic tenets of church doctrine which is included in the Pearl of Great Price, he wrote as number twelve, We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine Me again: Even if you want to argue that God was okay with men disregarding their marital vow to God in order to practice polygamy, the law was definitely not okay with men disregarding their legally contractual marital vows made to the state in order to practice polygamy, to the point that they enforced real legal punishment for doing so. Monogamists: "Grooms' marital vows were made to their wife, to God, and to the State." Polygamists: "God was okay with them not following those vows made to Him, in order to adopt polygamy." Monogamists: "What about the other two?"

If Brigham Young, John Taylor, or many of the other men who we knew practiced polygamy in Nauvoo had also died in Carthage, we would be having this same argument over whether or not they practiced polygamy. Because they also denounced polygamy. Many of them put out statements or signed documents that denounced polygamy. Joseph was better recorded than them so we have more of his statements (and he probably does more denials because he is actively teaching polygamy, unlike the others who aren't actively teaching it). But we have pretty much the same amount of contemporaneous documentation for all of the men involved. So, basing the argument on just what is contemporaneously recorded isn't good enough or else we would all have to say that there was no polygamy in Nauvoo, which is obviously false. You say there are no verified records during his life. I'm guessing you are on the side that says Clayton's journals are not contemporaneous (I sure hope the Yale printing has photographs of the actual journals so we can really know this). What do you make of Hyrum publicly stating that he is sealed to 2 women (one dead and one living)? D&C 84 was received in 1832. Long before any polygamy was introduced. It was added to the D&C as section 4 in 1835, which is still before polygamy. I find Bradley's recent research in the start of the Alger relationship to be pretty strong and he dates it to shortly after the Kirtland Temple dedication in 1836. I don't see how D&C 84 has anything to do with polygamy.

I find it noteworthy that so many of the systemic issues we see in modern polygamy were also seen in higher rates in Mormon polygamy, even during the years that it was supposedly approved by God: MDD 56. 'Doesn't polygamy produce different outcomes if it's sanctioned by God?" There are those who have argued that data from polygamous or polyamorous groups outside of early Mormonism should never be applied to the polygamy of early Mormonism. They argue that polygyny as practiced by Muslims, FLDS, or non-religious individuals is unsanctioned polygamy, and so ought never to be compared to the polygamy that was supposedly commanded by God to the early Mormons. They argue that God blessed the early Mormons with divine strength, understanding, and purity of heart, and so any polygamy figures from groups outside early Mormonism is therefore misapplied data. But with the early-Mormon-isolated data that young children of polygamous Mormons had higher mortality rates, that polygamous Mormons had higher divorce rates, and that polygamous Mormon women and children suffered under greater levels of neglect, we can see that the level of suffering and dysfunction experienced by early Mormons in polygamy refutes such an argument. Whatever it was that God still blessed early Mormon polygamous family members with, they were not blessed to be as demographically healthy, secure, prosperous, or functional as their monogamous counterparts. Early Mormon monogamous families fared better than Mormon polygamous families during every period in which Mormon church leaders practiced polygamy. It is significant that so many of the exact same societal issues of present day polygamous societies — higher rates of neglect, poverty, contention, and death itself — were found in early Mormon polygamy as well. Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

Hyrum Smith's entire address was an anti-polygamy sermon, stating that Joseph's marriage revelation was about eternal marriage, not plural marriage, and Hyrum specifically included the detail of himself being sealed to his deceased wife and his current wife to emphasize to the men that being sealed to more than one woman *isn't* justification for any of the men to start thinking there to be polygamy being practiced or taught in the church. The Historical Monogamy Doctrine sites themselves, while arguing against the idea of mass polygamy in the afterlife (see HMD section 32) nevertheless don't outright protest against the idea of selective cases of it, they rather argue that it wouldn't be a necessity for anyone. But they also suggest that it's not unreasonable to ask whether a spouse might only be eternally matched to progress in exaltation with whichever one spouse they are most compatible to be eternally paired with: MDD 67. "Even if there isn't mass polygamy in Heaven, there would still have to be some polygamy. What about widowers who remarry? They have to be polygamists in heaven." Widowers who remarry do not have to have two wives for all eternity any more than widows who remarry have to have two husbands for all eternity. It is just as reasonable to suggest that we may only be eternally paired with the one spouse to whom we are most mutually compatible with, and that any other remaining spouse will be paired with someone else who is more mutually and eternally suitable for them. If God doesn't allow for any polygamy exceptions in this life, it is reasonable to discuss whether there might not be any polygamy exceptions in the next life. Heber C. Kimball, even while asserting that, "The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away" also divulged, "some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself". Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

You can listen to the 7 minutes he talks about it at 2:36:00 — It wasn't through his visions that he first became convinced Joseph didn't practice polygamy, but through his online reading of others who were making that claim and the info they shared. He thought they were "crazy" at first (that was the same as me actually, I thought it was a super delulu idea when I first heard it) and then it was afterwards that the Spirit ordered him (he didn't want to) to do a verse-by-verse analysis of Section 132 and make note of all of the problems with it. Once he was done, the Spirit ordered him to share it with his polygamist family members, which he again really didn't want to do.