AnchoredinChrist

That’s a good list, I’m not familiar with a couple of them so I’d need to look them up. Abraham of course didn’t sacrifice Isaac, so an Abrahamic test is only such if the Lord doesn’t actually intend for you to ever go through with it. And was it against a commandment to marry a prostitute? I understand it was breaking commandments to be one, but I’ve not heard it was to be married to one. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible gives more clarification to the quote of Jesus. The King James Version says, 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. The Joseph Smith Translation says, 26 If anyone come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters or husband, yea and their own life also, or in other words is afraid to lay down their life for my sake, cannot be my disciple. (https://rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Luke.pdf – page 74) So the clarification is that Jesus is talking about laying down one’s life for Christ. As far as the importance of commandments to God goes, I think Monogamy as Divine Design section 71 to give a valuable viewpoint, 71 ~ Jacob promises destruction to the men over polygamy, even if they are following every other commandment ~ Jacob quotes the Lord as saying, "For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction;" (Jacob 2:33) That the Lord would threaten the Nephite men with destruction for breaking the law of monogamy, even though they were obeying every other commandment, is significant. The Nephite men are even threatened by the Lord with destruction by the Lamanites, who were not following the law of Moses as the Nephites were. This suggests that the Lord considered the law of monogamy to be of greater importance to follow than the Mosaic Law. This also indicates that the Lord considers there to be no level of spiritual obedience to other commandments that can compensate for not obeying the law of monogamy. historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/divinedesign

Because he was the church president, so it was his name they were using to seduce women, I preached in the grove, and pronounced a curse upon all Adulterers and Fornicators, and unvirtuous persons and those who have made use of my name to carry on their iniquitous designs. (DHC 4:587) The public will perceive the aggravating nature of this case; and will see the propriety of this exposure. Had he only been guilty of adultry, that was sufficient to stamp disgrace upon him because he is a man of better information, and has been held high in the estimation of many. But when it is considered that his mind was so intent upon his cruel, and abominable deeds, and his own reputation not being sufficient to enable him to do it, he must make use of my name in order to effect his purposes, an enlightened public will not be astonished at the course I have pursued. In order that it may be distinctly understood that he wilfully and knowingly lied, in the above insinuations, I will lay before my readers an affidavit taken before an alderman of the city, after I had charged him with these things: (19 May 1842 - Nauvoo City Council) “[A] charge [was] [preferred] against Chauncey L. Higbee by George Miller for unchaste and un-virtuous conduct with the widow [Sarah] Miller, and others.” In the trial, “Three witness[es] testified that he had seduced [several women] and at different times [had] been guilty of unchaste and unvirtuous conduct with them and taught the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women if it was kept secret &c and also taught that Joseph Smith authorised him to practice these things &c” (24, May 1842 -Joseph files charges against Chauncey L. Higbee in court.) 25 May 1842 - Catherine Warren learns that John C. Bennett incorrectly claimed support by the leaders of the church -- The charge was preferred “against Ms. Catherine Warren by George Miller for unchaste and unvirtuous conduct with John C. Bennett and others. The defendant confessed to the charge and gave the names of several other [men] who had been guilty having unlawful intercourse with her[,] stating they taught the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women and that the heads of the Church also taught and practiced it[,] …learning that the heads of the church did not believe of [the] practice [of] such things[,] she was willing to confess her sins and did repent before God for what she had done and desired earnestly that the Council would forgive her.” “...he went to some of the females in the city, who knew nothing of him but as an honorable man, & began to teach them that promiscous [promiscuous] intercourse between the sexes, was a doctrine believed in by the Latter-Day Saints, and that there was no harm in it; but this failing, he had recourse to a more influential and desperately wicked course; and that was, to persuade them that myself and others of the authorities of the church not only sanctioned, but practiced the same wicked acts; and when asked why I publicly preached so much against it, said that it was because of the prejudice of the public, and that it would cause trouble in my own house. (Times and Seasons, July 1, 1842, p. 839-840) 1st for trying to seduce a young girl, living in his house by the name of Phebe Madison. 2nd. For using my name in a blasphemous manner, by saying that I tolerated such things in which he is guilty of lying &c &c. Joseph Smith (Dinger, J. S. (2011). The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes, p. 479-480. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books) I was present with several of the Twelve, and gave an address tending to do away with every evil, and exhorting them to practice virtue and holiness before the Lord— told them that the church had not received any permission from me to commit fornication, adultery, or any corrupt action, but my every word and action has been to the contrary... I condemned such actions in toto, and warned the people present against committing such evils, for it will surely bring a curse upon any person who commits such deeds. (25 November 1843 - Joseph gave an address to the Twelve) I know that the LDS church argument to those quotes is, "But none of those instances were authorized polygamy," but I consider HMD section 43 to address that well too, 43. 'Can't polygamy be seen as being different from Celestial plural marriage?' LDS historians have argued that the "plural marriage" commanded by God and supposedly practiced by Joseph Smith was of a different nature than man-made polygamy, and so argue that even when Joseph condemned polygamy by name, he was never condemning "Celestial plural marriage". One significant problem with this theory is that Joseph's denunciations include not just polygamy by name, but also any plurality of wives: ...we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. 1835 - “General Assembly,” Messenger and Advocate 1 (August 1835) 2: 162. Question 7th. Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one. [sic] Answer. No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again. Joseph Smith, July 1838 - [Editorial,] Elder’s Journal, 1 (July 1838), 43. No man shall have but one wife. Joseph Smith's office journal, 5 October 1843. As written by Willard Richards What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. Joseph Smith, LDS History of the Church 6:409-411 Another major issue with this theory is that Joseph never used the terms, "plural marriage" nor "Celestial marriage" in any of his first-hand or contemporaneous records. Yet another significant issue with this theory is that D&C 132:1 does not describe itself as giving the doctrine of "Celestial plural marriage" nor "Celestial plurality of wives" but simply, "the principle and doctrine of... having many wives and concubines." The terminology that church historians use to distinguish between the polygamy they believe Joseph Smith to have been practicing versus the polygamy they argue him to be condemning appears to be anachronistic, as Joseph condemned, by name, polygamy, spiritual wifism, fornication (the legal term in use), and having more than one wife in general. "Celestial marriage", "Celestial plural marriage", or any of their variations were not in recorded use until after Joseph and Hyrum's deaths, and polygamists in later years describe "spiritual wifery" as being the term in common use previous to their trek west, ...Mrs. Durfee invited my sister, Eliza, and me to her house to spend the afternoon. She introduced the subject of spiritual wives, as they called it in that day. Emily Dow Partridge Young, "Incidents in the Life of a Mormon Girl", 1876 Spiritual wives, as we were then termed, were not very numerous in those days... Emily Dow Partridge Young, "Pioneer Day". Women's Exponent, 24 July 1883 At the time [in Nauvoo] 'spiritual wife' was the title by which every woman who entered into the this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order." Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Juvenile Instructor. 1882 Brigham Young in 1844, 1845, 1847, 1849, and 1851 used the terms 'spiritual wife' and 'spiritual wifery' when speaking of polygamy. In 1855 Heber C. Kimball preached, If you oppose any of the works of God you will cultivate a spirit of apostasy. If you oppose what is called the "spiritual wife doctrine," the Patriarchal Order, which is of God, that course will corrode you with a spirit of apostasy, and you will go overboard. Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City. 6 October 1855. Journal of Discourses vol. 3 p. 125

Then it will be another point that we are speaking past eachother due to not seeing eye-to-eye, as while it’s clear that the Lord had other motivated reasoning, that the conditions were such that it would be justified regardless of what other additional motivation the Lord had. (We also don’t know that Nephi and his family would have definitely been safe if Nephi had only taken his clothes and left an unconscious naked Laban where he found him – Laban likely could have sent his servants outside of the city wall to find them once he awoke and found his stuff gone.) I think it to be significant that the angel only said, “the Lord will deliver Laban into thy hands” once the exact situation of theft/attempted killing had already occurred.

The above quote was published in the Deseret News though, in addition to the Journal of Discourses. The publication date is above. Then I would consider Brigham Young to have contradicted himself on that point too: Feb. 23, 1862 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:289 “The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.” Aug. 31, 1873 - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 16th Volume, p. 161, reported by George Q. Cannon "If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, October 1897, 22-23.

Does it distinguish that it is the first infants of a first wife, and that it is while they are infants, that the mortality rates for her are high? Because if it is just, "children of a first wife" in general, then such figures could suggest that a first wife and the children of a first wife become more proportionately neglected than other plural wives after a second, third, or fourth wife are added. If it's an average of 11 years after first marriage that a man gets a second wife, then the children of his first marriage are still under the 15-year-age benchmark used to determine child mortality in the 2012 meta analysis study. So it would potentially be possible that it is when a man gets a subsequent wife that the mortality rates for his current and future children from his first wife rise higher.

I just did a word count check on the Historical Monogamy Doctrine main page, and it's over 25,000 words long, which is as long or longer than some graduate thesis papers are. That wouldn't be including the text on any of the graphic inserts. I then counted the Denunciations page and there were several thousand words' worth of quotes on there as well. Maybe the writer didn't think it necessary to rewrite what has already been written. The LDS church's argued narrative of events can be found on several sites and publications already, there have already been hundreds-of-pages-long books written on the monogamy-only topic (which the writer herself recommends for more in-depth study) and there are literally hundreds of hours of YouTube videos going in depth on it as well, which are also on the Further Study page. Obviously, the website is an apologetic argument towards a non-polygamous Book of Mormon, D&C, and Joseph Smith, so like other apologetics, it's arguing things from the standpoint of their own stance being a valid stance. I went ahead and checked the word count on Monogamy as Divine Design too, and it's even longer -- nearly 27,000 words (26,800-something).

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.