AnchoredinChrist

HMD 28. The traditional LDS interpretation of Jacob 2:30 is contradicted by child mortality rates of early Mormon polygamists. In addition to polygamy producing fewer children than traditionally claimed, data analysis of early Mormon households has also found that child mortality rates (defined here as children under age 15) were higher within Mormon polygamous families in the 1800s than within monogamous families. It was shown that even children of wealthy polygamist men had a lower survival rate than children of poorer families with less wives (most of the poorer men included in the data had only one wife). The analysts state, "This is amazing, given that the poor men had less than 10 per cent of the wealth of the rich men, and the rich men had significantly more total offspring (including those that did not make it to [age] 15)." The researchers speculated these numbers are indicative that fathers with less wives were more family-involved and less neglectful of their wife and children, whereas wealthy men with multiple wives devoted more time, funds, and attention towards adding additional wives. historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine Sources: Heath K. M., Hadley C. 1998. Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society: mating versus parental effort. Curr. Anthropol. 39, 369–374 10.1086/204748 (doi:10.1086/204748) [DOI] [Google Scholar][Ref list] Henrich J, Boyd R, Richerson PJ. The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 5;367(1589):657-69. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0290. PMID: 22271782; PMCID: PMC3260845.

I've had very little success with the Journal of Discourse online search in past years. On more than one occasion I've made a search for a quote that I *know* is in there that either I or others have seen with their own two eyes, but the search came up with nothing.

Great, love this. You specifically mean eternal polygamy only, yes? Specifically for widowers? I imagine you'd find monogamy-affirmers on both sides of that, like I said I have my own opinion on it but I think whichever way you fall is besides the point when talking about denouncing all of Brigham Young's harmful teachings. But no, Joseph letting Hyrum being sealed to two women doesn't automatically in the minds of monogamy-affirmers mean that they believe there will be eternal polygamy for remarried widowers. The LDS church now allows remarried widows to be sealed to more than one husband, does that mean that the LDS church now teaches eternal polyandry? Most LDS members still say "No" about that. As in Joseph only ever taught of eternal polygamy for widowers and then Brigham Young maybe came up with mortal polygamy doctrine as a misinterpretation of what Joseph taught? Supposing that, a "Brigham Young misinterpreted Joseph" argument wouldn't explain why Brigham Young forbid Augusta Cobb from ever meeting with Joseph Smith, it wouldn't explain why Brigham claimed that Joseph called Emma the "wickedest woman who ever lived" and that Emma tried to kill Joseph, it wouldn't explain why Brigham Young started openly acquiring wives but only after the Martyrdom, and others that I won't list off as it would make this comment too long, so there would be a lot of plot holes left open for me with such an argument as that.

In the first thread in which I posted the Monogamy as Divine Design site (it was a recent month, as the site was released earlier this year) I remember you replying that you looked through it and pointed out a few of the sections that you didn't like and so didn't read it all the way through, which is, along with your more recent responses, what gave me the impression that you hadn't read it in full as you now say you have (unless you're thinking of Historical Monogamy Doctrine?) I would argue that going out of his way to canonize scripture explicitly against it, to sue accusers in court, to publish confessions from those guilty (John C Bennet & one of the victimized girls), etc is a lot more than simply being "publicly vocal" against polygamy. That is why I included that section. Joseph Smith didn't just excommunicate men practicing polygamy, he acted to sue one of the same men (lawyer Chauncey Higbee) for defamation for Chauncey having said that Joseph was teaching polygamy himself. Brigham Young certainly never did that. You might not think that to be a relevant enough point to mention, but I do, which is why I included it. You were talking about God, in your view, being inconsistent with His commandments, a view which I don't share myself. I consider MDD sections 7 & 8 to both be relevant to that same topic, which is why I copied them together side-by-side in my response, as they were responding to the same thing. You specifically said that God sometimes commands people to break previous commandments (a view which I do not share) and specifically used Nephi killing Laban as an example. Others have made that argument as well, which is apparently why Monogamy as Divine Design has a section addressing that very point, explaining why "Nephi killing Laban" is not an example of God telling someone to break the commandments at all. If you want to bring up a different scriptural example of God in your view commanding someone to break a commandment then I'm open to hearing it.

Then at best Brigham Young can only be said to have wildly contradicted himself on more than one occasion, as he was one of the leaders in a "small town" (Paris, Idaho in this case) who was preaching such things publicly: "Now, where a man in this church says, ‘I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.' He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all.... and he will remain single forever and ever." Brigham Young, Deseret News, September 17, 1873 Journal of Discourses volume 16, pg. 166. August 31, 1873 It's significant that it was published both in the Deseret News and in the Journal of Discourses — with him saying that his preached word is as good as scripture, HMD 47. 'Weren't some of those things merely stated as his own personal opinion?' I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95 I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible... Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264 historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine Brigham Young also taught that it's not good enough to be a polygamist in name only, he taught that such marriages needed to follow the model of Abraham and Hagar in being consummated or maybe supposed attempted impregnation in order to have it count in the eyes of God: HMD 94 ~ Some members who practiced polygamy on paper still weren't willing to use it to ‘raise up seed’ ~ There seem to have been certain husbands and wives who were willing to believe in the teaching that plural marriage was necessary for exaltation, but who nonetheless put it off for themselves until later in life, perhaps deciding to raise a family together as a couple first with the plan to find an old widow or spinster to support as a plural wife at some point in the future. Brigham Young spoke out against these men who were not willing to procreate with plural wives (as well as against plural wives who were not willing to procreate with their husbands) when he said, Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding upon the Lord by the participants fulfilling their vow and covenant, 'to fulfill all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant.' This means obeying the law of Abraham and Sarah as set forth in the Holy Scriptures (D&C Sections 131 and 132, especially verse 34). Without compliance to this law upon which eternal marriage is predicated, you will get about as far as anyone married outside the temple. The Lord says, "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." See D&C 82:10. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 167 The Doctrine & Covenants verse that he references (D&C 132:34) is the verse stating that Abraham had been commanded to impregnate Hagar. Brigham Young's counsel here then, is that men are commanded to consummate marriages with plural wives who are young enough to bear children, and that plural wives are commanded to allow their husband to try to impregnate them. historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

I hope that won't put you off from reading it. It's one-sided with short sections as it's meant only to be an introductory reading of the argument that Joseph Smith wasn't polygamous and that polygamy wasn't of God. It's very open right there in its intro paragraph that it is an introduction (so it doesn't go in-depth) and that it's intention is to make the introductory case for Joseph's monogamy and monogamy-only doctrine: "These section points are meant to provide a basic foundational understanding of the narrative that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, together with the elementary case for plural marriage as a whole to be rejected as doctrine." In its last section, it references the Further Study page for more in-depth and nuanced study, including Whitney Horning's book which I think is over 400 pages long. As an introduction site, it's actually rather long -- I think it's about three hours to read. If you were to insist that it should "show both sides" then it would be at least twice as long at that, which simply wouldn't work for one webpage. As far as giving an overview goes, it's rather comprehensive, and reading this site first serves to be a good jumping off point to dive in deeper to the topic afterwards, which this site recommends people do by providing the links for the further study materials itself: 110. 'What if I'm still not yet convinced?' Many aspects of early Mormon polygamy are more complex and not easily addressed by simple Question-Answer format. Deeper understanding of this narrative, with important and relevant details of Joseph Smith's life and ministry, can be gained by accessing the listed content on the Further Study page. Additional theological arguments against polygamy, integrated with the psychosocial evidence showing polygamy to be a harmful practice, can be found on the sister website linked below, titled, Monogamy as Divine Design. Also seek confirmation of the truth from the Lord in prayer, as "by the voice of the Spirit ye may know the truth of all things," and as Joseph Smith read, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." historicalmonogamy.wisxite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

I found out just today that Brigham Young's youngest wife was 13, when he was 43 -- beginning at 8:35,

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?

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

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

? 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 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?"

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.

It would be noteworthy to add that the Lord in D&C says the Saints are to be following the "Book of Mormon and the former commandments": 106 ~ The Lord in D&C confirms that members in Joseph Smith's time were under condemnation ~ Section 84 of the Doctrine & Covenants reads, And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written— That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion. D&C 84:57-58 The Lord here states explicitly that church members will be under condemnation for not following the "former commandments" and the Book of Mormon, and that this condemnation will follow us until we both do and say according to that which the Lord has written. The Book of Mormon was written for Joseph Smith's day, for our day, and for the day of our future generations. We have never had any valid doctrinal excuse to dismiss the Lord's commandments to the Nephites through Jacob as only being for the Nephites Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign Me again: (This was received from the Lord by Joseph and added to the D&C during the years that Joseph was supposedly practicing polygamy himself, but it was in fact other men who were practicing it behind Joseph's back. Arguing that polygamy was a higher commandment that the Lord wanted the Saints to follow doesn't align with D&C 84.)

If it were only that we have no verified contemporaneous records of him speaking in favor of polygamy, then it would indeed be a weaker argument than it is, but the fact that we have no verified records (during his life) of him teaching polygamy while *also* having a very long page of verified, first-hand words of him specifically denouncing polygamy makes it a much, much stronger case. These quotes are words that are predominantly either from him or that he approved for publication, many of them being said during the same years that polygamy apologists argue he was practicing polygamy himself: Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/timeline

The Nauvoo Expositor made this claim too, and Joseph Smith is contemporaneously recorded in the High Council minutes notes as publicly refuting it: 67 ~ The traditional Section 132 revelation story contradicts Joseph Smith's statement of his marriage revelation ~ LDS historians have stated Joseph Smith received a revelation on marriage in answer to a question asked by Joseph during his translation of the Bible. They have stated plural marriage as being the question and the doctrine received in this case, citing Section 132 where it says, ...inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines - The Nauvoo Expositor also made this claim. However, Joseph's testimony to the Nauvoo City Council against the Expositor states his revelation on marriage to have been from his inquiry on an altogether different passage of the Bible (specifically Matthew 22:30), and was in reference to eternal marriage, not plural marriage, Mayor [Joseph Smith] said he had never preached the revelation in private as he had in public - had not taught it to the annointed in the church in private which many confirmed. - On enquiry the passage in the resurrection they neither mary & I received for answer. Men in this life must be married in view of eternity, was the amount of the revelation, otherwise they must remain as angels - in heaven, and spoke at considerable length in explanation of this principle..." Nauvoo City Council, 10 June 1844; published in "EXTRA," Nauvoo Neighbor 2:8, published 19 June 1844 historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

The doctrine of "having many wives and concubines", as contained in Section 132, is not put forward as a way for (certain, if you want to argue it to only be certain) women to "progress" at whatever point that she feels able to progress, but 'she must do this or I will destroy her, saith the Lord.' Moreover, put forward to (certain, if you want to argue it to only be certain) men outside of Section 132 rhetoric, it was not,"Do this to progress" but, 'Do this or your family will cease to exist as your family.' The husbands of the church who had made vows of faithfulness at their one legal marriage and were later commanded to enter into polygamy were being told by their leaders to break their marriage vow: 62 ~ Vows to God, to man, and to the State ~ In the 1800s, the legal marriage vows taken by grooms were traditionally the following words, I [Groom's name], do take thee, [Bride's name] to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; and I promise to be faithful to thee until death do us part. The promise to be "faithful to thee until death do us part" is a vow of complete monogamy to one's wife until either she or yourself dies. Open sexual affairs (including bigamy) were regarded in the eyes of the law as breaking the legally binding marital contract, and in the eyes of Christianity as breaking a vow to God. Mormon husbands who had made such vows at marriage (either previous to polygamy being practiced by Mormons or previous to a family converting to Mormonism) were breaking the vows they had made when married. In the Book of Mormon, the Anti-Nephi-Lehi men, having vowed to never kill again, later considered breaking their oath in order to assist the Nephites, who were dying in their wars with the Lamanites. Our record says that Helaman and his brethren persuaded them to keep their oath, out of fear that "lest by so doing [breaking the oath] they should lose their souls". (Alma 53:13-15) Despite it being a life-or-death situation for Nephite men, the Nephite leaders instructed the Anti-Nephi-Lehi men to not make any exception to break their oath. The LDS church leaders who directed Mormon husbands to break their vows of monogamy were not following after the instruction of our Book of Mormon leaders when they taught to never break one's oaths. The Mormon husbands who broke their marital vows of monogamy by entering into polygamy were violating oaths made to God and to their wife, and were not following the teachings of the importance of honoring solemn oaths found in the Book of Mormon. 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World' reads, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." Historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

I recognized it as a joke, but only because you wrote it. I guess I've been reading your comments with their own special sarcasm filter 🙃

So, if every man in the whole world was righteous and had a wife, there would be no need for polygamy, but because they are not all righteous, Mormon priesthood holders therefore have to practice polygamy? And if the priesthood men only live righteously with one wife, they will have her taken away and given to a polygamist man? Even though there weren't enough single women for all the priesthood holders to have two wives? Remember that from my viewpoint, polygamy is an abominable false doctrine that Brigham Young created as a commandment all on his own (and lied about to do so), and so cannot be 'swapped out' in principle with tithing or the word of wisdom.