webbles

This made me curious about Elder Soares ancestry since there are a lot of German Brazilians who were baptized in the early days of the church in Brazil. I found both his parents in family search and traced his geneology. He is definitely not German. His father's family has lived in Brazil since pretty much its discovery by Portugal. He even has Native American ancestry because of some really old ancestors who had Native American wives. His mother's parents are immigrants from Portugal and Spain. He is definitely Brazilian, Portuguese, and Spanish, with a very small dash of Native American.

Sorry, I meant to reply to this and it looks like I deleted it from my other comment. This doesn't show Van Komen saying that the helpline doesn't keep notes. This shows that Family Service employees don't keep notes. But, again, Family Service != helpline. The helpline is a 1-800 number that goes to both Family Service employees and attorneys. Where does Van Komen say that the helpline (aka the 1-800 number, aka all the people who accept those calls) don't keep notes? Please stop equating the helpline to Family Services. They are not the same thing.

He wasn't going to share notes. He was going to see if her father had confessed previously. He is helping a victim, which sounds like a great idea. It sounds like there wasn't enough evidence to be able to take the guy to court (and no, the bishop could not testify, anything he said would be thrown out of court). The pbs article is really bad reporting and since we don't have the tapes, we don't know for sure what was proposed. But what would be the purpose of seeing if her dad had confessed to someone else? How would that help Chelsea or the court case, especially when she already knew that he had confessed to others? Maybe Rytting was proposing to help see if there was something else that could actually be used in court. If there was something in the notes that could point to evidence outside of the confession, then it could be helpful.

That's my understanding as well. Yes, the Family Services does not keep any helpline notes. But that doesn't mean there are no helpline notes. The two are not the same: "Family Service notes" != "helpline notes". The Family Service notes are a part of the helpline notes. The attorneys also have helpline notes. Why do you think calling the attorney notes "helpline notes" amateurish? That's what I would call them. That's apparently what he calls them as well. Why would you not think he would call them that in the court of law? They are privileged records, but they are also helpline records. What would you call the notes of the attorney who answered the helpline? They don't keep records at Family Services. We know they keep records with the attorneys. And it makes sense to not keep records at the Family Services. It would be poor form for them to be keeping records. Why should they keep notes of people they don't have a relationship with? I would suspect that is probably a HIPAA violation of some sort. And why do they need to keep a record of who answers the calls? I agree that people are having issues with it, but I believe it is mostly caused by really bad reporting. Take your initial abc news article. It was poorly done. It used the wrong names, said the wrong things. Poor reporting has been very unhelpful. Van Komen has only said that the Family Service keeps no records and if that had been properly reported by news articles, there would be a lot less confusion. The Family Service destroys every single record for when they work on the helpline because they don't have a relationship with those involved. Their records aren't privileged so it could be used in courts. Say you go to the bishop and talk about a marital issue and how you need counseling. The bishop calls the helpline to find a good counselor for you. You start to go to that counselor and don't tell you spouse. Your spouse discovers you going to a counselor and for some reason decides to divorce you. If the helpline counselor had kept notes, the spouse could bring that into the divorce proceedings. I wouldn't want that to happen. They aren't destroying notes to harm children. It is to protect people. If abuse happens, it seems they send it directly to attorneys because the attorneys can take notes and have them legally privileged. That can then be used to actually help the children. The helpline has actually been used to turn in abusers. I don't see why an attorney would not call it helpline notes. But let's say they aren't. Why wouldn't Rytting call it that when talking to a non-attorney? And clergy/penitent privilege only deals with what is allowed in court. And it also has nothing to do with the helpline. That is covered under attorney/client privilege, which also really only deals with what is allowed in court. But let's say it does matter here. Who the client is for the helpline? The church. So Rytting, in his job for the church, is a client of the attorneys and definitely can use those records to help others.

The problem is that you keep saying that the helpline doesn't take notes. I've shown multiple times that it does keep notes. Van Komen never, ever says that the helpline doesn't keep notes. If you believe Van Komen does say that, find it for me, please. This is what Van Komen does say (all from the Bisbee deposition): First, just to clarify that we are talking about the helpline/hotline: So, Van Komen is talking about the helpline and hotline. Specifically the 1-800 number. Now, to discuss who answers it. This is several question/answers: In these question/answers, he states that both attorneys and Family Service employees answer the phones. Sometimes the attorneys answer first, sometimes the Family Service employees answer first. The helpline IS NOT the Family Service. It goes to both attorneys and Family Service employees. So notes written by both groups are, by definition, helpline notes. If an attorney answers the phone and takes notes, he is taking notes about the helpline. Additionally, Van Komen even mentions notes by the attorneys: Right there, Van Komen is explicitly stating that the Family Services employees who answer the helpline do not keep notes but the attorneys who answer the phone do. So, what am I missing? Why are the attorney notes not helpline notes even though they are answering the helpline and taking notes while listening to the helpline. Why are you insisting the helpline notes are destroyed when it is only the Family Service notes of the helpline that are destroyed.

Where in the deposition do you believe his "I don't know" is actually lying? I've read it a few times and I seem to be missing this part that you are talking about.

Oh, I see what you are trying to say. You think that Rytting and Van Komen are talking about the same records because they both talk about the helpline. But the helpline can call both Family Services employees and McConkie lawyers. As the privilege log for the Bisbee case shows, there are times that the call goes directly to the attorneys and doesn't go through any social worker. So, the Family Services notes are NOT the only helpline records. Van Komen is talking about the records that he knows about. He is not talking about other helpline records that might exist. Rytting isn't talking about the Family Services notes when he talks about the helpline records. Also, have you seen the call log (aka privilege log)? Here's the one from the Bisbee case - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22277029-mormon-church-help-line-call-logs/. You'll want to go to page 260/261. It has a "Description of Entry" which discusses a short item about it. So the first entry says "Initial Case Summary based on conversation between Merrill Nelson (A) and Bp. John Herrod". There's another one that says "Note discussing Merrill Nelson's (A) conversation with Bp. John Herrod." There's one that says "Summary of Merrill Nelson's (A) call with SP Kevin Goates". Notice how we have summaries and notes? We don't know whether they destroy them or not but it looks like they don't. That is the helpline records that Rytting is using.

Yes, the helpline and the hotline are the same thing. I don't see what that has to do with anything. There are 3 types of records. I don't know why you are ignoring that. There are the call logs which we absolutely do have. In that affidavit, they reference the call logs (the attorneys refer to it as the "privilege log"). So it makes no sense to say that Van Komen said there were no call logs when they talk about the call logs in the same affidavit. There are the Family Service notes. This is what Van Komen is talking about. This is what is destroyed. He solely talks about what he and his colleagues at the Family Services do. And then there are attorney records. We have no insight into them. They are protected by attorney/client privilege. In that affidavit, the plaintiff attorney tries several questions to get information about what the attorneys might have and is either rebuffed with a privilege objection or Van Komen says he doesn't know. It would appear that there are records that the attorneys keep and that is what Rytting is possibly using (though the call log seems to be enough for his comment to Chelsea). This new announcement from the church definitely looks like it is using some sort of attorney record. So it makes it more likely that those are being kept.

Van Komen is talking about the Family Services records. Those are destroyed every day. There are no records of those. But Rytting isn't using those. We know that the call logs are kept. No one has ever said those are destroyed. They have been used in multiple cases (both the West Virginia and the Bisbee case used them). We also have absolutely no idea if there are records being stored by the attorneys. It seems like there are records of those kept around but the only people with access to them are the lawyers. And Van Komen isn't a lawyer so he wouldn't know. Rytting isn't lying.

That PBS article (which is based on an earlier AP article) is incorrect in its presentation of what was testified and what was said. I've noticed this quite a bit with articles around sex abuse cases dealing with the church. You usually have to find the original article to figure out what is said and sometimes have to go to the affidavit or court record. In this case, the original article that talks about the West Virginia case and the affidavit is https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-church-sexual-abuse-investigation-e0e39cf9aa4fbe0d8c1442033b894660. It talks about the sealed records that the AP gained access to. They talk about an affidavit from Roger Van Komen (NOT Rytting) who says "Those notes are destroyed by the end of every day." Unfortunately, people have taken that to mean that all records/notes are destroyed yet we have had definitive proof that is a false idea for years. We know that the call logs are kept because they have been used in court cases. Komen is also a licensed social worker and not a lawyer so he would have no knowledge of what is happening on the lawyer side. And we know that any communication between the bishops and lawyers is considered privileged (though there have been attempts to break that privilege), per Rytting in an affidavit from the West Virginia case (also from that AP article): "The church has always regarded those communications between its lawyers and local leaders as attorney-client privileged". In the Arizona case, it is an affidavit from Komen that is being referred to. You can read the full affidavit at https://bhroberts.org/records/XYNbob-TsWxHb/roger_w_van_komen_church_helpline_employee_states_that_merrill_f_nelson_handled_the_bishop_herrod_helpline_call_in_the_bisbee_arizona_sexual_abuse_case. In there, Komen says several things: So, we have at least 3 types of records: Call logs (kept and not destroyed) Notes from social workers (destroyed at the end of the day) What ever is recorded at the lawyers office (unknown on how long these are kept) The statement of Rytting to Chelsea is almost definitely about the call logs. It might also be about the lawyer records. It isn't the notes because we know that is destroyed. Rytting isn't lying because, 1) he never stated in a sworn affidavit that the records are destroyed (that was Komen and the PBS article is mistaken), and 2) there are records that aren't destroyed. And Komen isn't lying because he is talking about the notes from the social workers which are destroyed every day. The PBS article is also mistaken in thinking it is the church's fault that the bishop couldn't testify in Chelsea's case. He legally would not be allowed to testify. Idaho law prevents it, see https://isc.idaho.gov/ire505. Specifically, "A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser. " That means that the confessor can prevent the bishop from testifying. The bishop could get on the stand and everything he says would be thrown out of court. This is something that articles sometimes really mess up. They blame the church over something that is not the church's fault.

I was going through a few of the court records where it talks about these calls and what records are kept. We knew before this announcement that they do keep records of who is called and when. That was used with the Bisbee case to figure out which attorney handled the call. But, it wasn't clear if these records also had social workers who were involved. This announcement looks to clear that up (which would mean that in the Bisbee case, no therapist was involved). Any records about what was discussed in calls with the attorneys has always been considered privileged so we don't know if they were destroyed, kept, etc. The only statements about destroyed records are about the social worker records. So, unless people under oath have been lying (which would be really stupid and is highly unlikely), the details are probably coming from a mixture of the call records, the attorney records and the memories of the social worker. For instance, the bullet point about the stake president would be from the call log since it just says that someone reached out to the stake president. The bullet point about self-reporting could be from the attorney records or the social worker memories. The bullet point about discussion of steps would have to come from the social worker memories (unless the attorney was on the same call and had notes).

That's an interesting rebuttal. I think it would also mean that lawsuits around abuse now know that they can try and get those records. I doubt the records with the social worker has any privileges and I'm not sure the existence of a telephone call to an attorney would be considered privileged. So we might see more of this type of information leak out, either as a response through the newsroom or as evidence in a court case.

I don't think he argued that but he did give a talk at an event in 2023 where some of the other speakers did argue that. I think this theory is fairly new in its modern form but does have some articles, youtube videos, and a few events discussing it.

He's been talking about monogamy for quite some time. So unless this is a new thing (excommunicating for advocating that Joseph never practiced polygamy), I doubt it. I'm not even sure if he is an active member at this time. I remember looking into whether he is a Snufferite at one point because many of his arguments followed Snuffer's.

Would Joseph be more of a fire and brimestone style preacher? Raising his voices at times, maybe even yelling at certain points? The speech pattern here is too smooth. I heard something similar from an AI recreated speech of Hyrum Smith (no visual, just voice) and it also bugged me because it was like he was trying to put me to sleep.

It is interesting. I don't care for seeing live actors portray the Savior because the actors don't look or sound correct to me (this includes all of the church videos which I have a hard time watching), and I kind of have the same problem here, though it is just an AI version. And it is too much uncanny valley as well. First time I started the video, I had to quickly quit it because of how jarring it was. But others probably don't have those problems.

The case against the church has been flagged as a "high profile case" in the court website so you can find all the files related to it at https://www.azcourts.gov/News-Info/CV-25-0213. That has the petition to review, the response, and all of the amici so far. An interesting thing I found as I read the petition and response, is that the plaintiffs are fine with marking one of the petitions (there are 3) as moot because the handbook that was used by the appeal court was from 2020 and the specific line the appeal court used didn't exist in the earlier handbook. Also, the church is focusing very much on Church Autonomy doctrine and says that is why the appeals court is wrong. And the plaintiffs are focusing very much on how this is a secular decision that has nothing to do with church autonomy and that the churches shouldn't hide behind the church autonomy doctrine.

More updates on this case. The 3 cases have been petitioned to the AZ Supreme Court. And the court recently decided on if the petitions will be accepted or not. The case with the bishop's doctor's office has been declined (https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CV/CV250144.pdf). So the appeals decision stands which ruled in favor of the bishop as a doctor. I think that means that case is finished. The case with the visiting teacher/friend (https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CV/CV250107.pdf) and the case with the church (https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CV/CV250213.PDF) have been accepted and will move to oral argument sometime after March. I'm really curious about an amicus brief filed in support of the church from a wide assortment of religions (Seventh Day, Muslim, Jewish, Swaminarayan, Episcopal, Scientology) but I haven't yet found a copy of that brief yet.

This made me curious about how many men had entered polygamy by the time the Nauvoo temple was finished. Per https://archive.org/details/nauvoo-sealings-adoptions-and-anointings/page/n1/mode/2up, I counted about 150 men who were sealed to at least two living women. More than I expected, but still a small percentage.

I wanted to split this out for a separate comment just because I needed some focus on it. I think the "radically new doctrine" was eternal marriage. Per Joseph's diary (https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/233), the following men and women were married to someone (most likely their living spouse) on May 28 and 29 (the journal says "married" not "sealed"): Joseph Smith James Adams Hyrum Smith Brigham Young Willard Richards Mercy Fielding Thompson Both Hyrum and Brigham had a dead wife and a living wife. Which wife should they get married to? We have an explanation from Hyrum (https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/daa151c4-7bae-49d0-8cef-d281a70f1d32/0/33) : So Hyrum was sealed to both of his wives. This is the earliest public statement about being sealed to two wives (one dead and one living) and it really ties marriage and sealing together. [And yes, I know that the church history expanded, but using just Hyrum's words, it is definitely about being sealed to two women. I've also seen anti-polygamists edit this talk as well to remove the last statement ("I will be sealed to you for eternity") since it hurts the anti-polygamist position.] I find it interesting that several of the early polygamists were widowers. I think that was a factor in how polygamy started. It is also fascinating that a widow was involved (Mercy) and that her situation wasn't enough to bring in eternal polyandry instead of just eternal polygyny. She also is interesting because all early sealings that involved a dead spouse, someone stood as proxy and was "married for time" to the living spouse. This makes a lot of sense for those that remarried, but it is weird for those that haven't remarried. There's one case where a woman was sealed to her dead husband and the proxy was her own son and he was "married for time" to his mom. What happened in Mercy's ceremony as it is probably the very first one that involved a living wife and a dead husband? Did someone stand proxy? If so, was the proxy "married for time" to her? Mercy's own explanation is a little confusing. She talks about being married to Hyrum but she gives two points of time for it happening: once on this date and once at a later date.

Clayton doesn't say "Celestial". Neither does Martha but she says "children who have not transgressed". So I doubt the doctrine is a child "is golden and will end up celestial no matter what they desire". I do believe that there is some sort of pull that helps save those who are sealed. I also believe that everyone will be sealed so it will affect everyone. But we all have our agency and can resist it. Fine to disagree. I do agree that what David and Solomon did was an abomination. But I just believe it is a bit more specific that is related to too many wives, taking wives outside of the appropriate channels, etc. Also, David and Solomon were not the primary excuse to justify polygamy in the 19th century. For me, it looks like the sole reason why D&C 132 mentions David and Solomon is to explain how polygamy is ok even though Jacob appears to have taught otherwise. Abraham is mentioned more times in D&C 132 and it references him for multiple reasons why polygamy is allowed. And The Seer mentions Abraham, Jacob and many of biblical polygamists along with David and Solomon - https://dn721506.ca.archive.org/0/items/OrsonPratt/TheSeer.pdf. And other defenses of polygamy usually talk about Abraham over David and Solomon (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23286126). It makes more sense to use Abraham and Jacob since what they did wasn't an abomination unlike David and Solomon. I believe there is only one sealing power that has been given to the prophet and apostles. But I believe that only part of it is delegated to others. I believe the sealing power has the ability to "seal the heavens", aka prevent rain. I don't believe that temple sealers can do that. I believe that prophets and apostles can seal someone and have their "calling and election made sure". I think that is the Second Anointing but I've never participated in it and so I'm not positive. Based on DC 132, there is some sealing that does seal someone to Celestial Kingdom with only the unpardonable sin (murder) being able to break the seal. Everything I've read about the Second Anointing fit what DC 132 says. Here's what happened to Heber and Vilate Kimball - https://bhroberts.org/records/uSw9xc-0ZsJTY/heber_c_kimballs_second_anointing_blessing_in_book_of_anointings. Lots of things are sealed on their head, including "all the Power & blessing of the Holy reserection, Even to the Eternal Godhead". But for the vast majority of us, we won't have our "calling and election made sure" till after we are dead. It is not a normal ordinance that is done. We are supposed to, as 2 Peter 1:10 says, "give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall" and that is done by enduring to the end. I'm not exactly sure what the Holy Spirit of Promise does but most of them it is mentioned, it is usually around sealing. But I see you changed the term to "ratify" which might work just as well. Since I've never personally met the "Holy Spirit of Promise" (which I believe is both the Holy Ghost and Christ depending on the situation), I don't worry that much about it. I believe that just because I'm sealed to my wife doesn't mean that I'll be with her in the hereafter no matter what I do. So there has to be something beyond the sealing ceremony in the temple that ensures that my sealing is solid and it has to involve my own person involvement.

Yes, getting your "calling and election made sure" generally doesn't involve some living person sealing you. The person who does the sealing is the Holy Spirit of Promise. The verses in D&C 132 about calling and election (18-19) are about this type of sealing. Getting sealed in the temple by a temple sealer is not the same. I think the Second Anointing is supposed to be the living version of having this sealing done. Ok, so you are focusing just on the sealing authority given to the prophet/apostles and which is partially delegated to temple sealers. That's fine. Unfortunately, a bunch of the talks and manuals about sealings usually expand it to include the other ways sealing is used. The sealing authority that prophets/apostles have does have the ability to perform Second Anointings which makes your calling and election sure. The power that temple sealers has is a limited subset of that. That is what most of us interact with so, yes, that is our main focus of sealings. It would be really cool of the Prophet loosed the heavens and brought forth rain or snow. But Christ does talk about sealing when he says to Peter "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19). He doesn't use the word sealing but the similar worded phrase in Helaman 10:7 uses "seal" in place of "bind". And Paul mentions sealing a few times. Ephesians 1:13 is an example with Holy Spirit of Promise mentioned in it - "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" I guess I should have said "highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom". Joseph's teachings are from a talk in Aug 13 1843. We have several people who recorded it and some of the mentioned something about sealings of parents having some impact on the children. Probably the most complete is from Martha Corey: The transcript is at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-13-august-1843-a-as-reported-by-martha-jane-knowlton-coray/5. You can also see other variations. Here's what William Clayton recorded: Yes, I don't have any problem with that interpretation. But since there are at least two ways to interpret it, I don't see DC 132 directly contradicting Jacob. It is also interesting to me that Jacob doesn't complain about Abraham and Jacob having other wives, so it feels like David and Solomon did something more to be condemned by Jacob. That was from Calm, not me. But reading the talk, I agree with the talk. it is kind of similar to how the keys to gather Israel weren't given to Joseph until 1836, so what was the church doing before then? The church did things a little out of order because things were still being restored. I wouldn't say his "baptism was not valid", but just that he didn't have the authority to seal it in the heavens. Instead, the Holy Spirit of Promise sealed it before 1836. God always has the sealing power, so He can always seal when ever or what ever He wants.

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Hales-JohnCBennett-2015.pdf has a bunch of details about Bennet. Page 143 (page 14 of the pdf) has a section about being "Assistant President". It seems like Bennet hardly did anything, either spiritually or temporally.

The idea behind it was taught multiple times by Joseph Smith and later prophets. The phrase "calling and election made sure" is from 2 Peter 1:10. Here's a talk (written down by James Burgess) from Joseph in 1844 where he basically says the same thing that D&C 132 says - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-10-march-1844-as-reported-by-james-burgess/5 It talks about making your calling and election sure, having it sealed, and also that it seals you against all sin except murder. Here's another one from 1839 (recorded by Willard Richards) - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-between-circa-26-june-and-circa-2-july-1839-as-reported-by-willard-richards/3 It doesn't talk about murder, but it does talk about the Holy Spirit of promise and calling & elections being made sure. Not all General Authorities get the Second Anointing and you don't have to be a General Authority to get it. There was a Stake President who left the church and he had received it and divulged what occurred. The leaders of the church have gone back and forth on whether more people or less people should get it. This verse states that to be sealed is done through an authorized servant. It also can be reasonably interpreted to say that the sealing can only be broken if the sealed commits cold-blooded murder as we all "abide in our covenants" as we constantly break them every day. (i.e. There are none among us who fully live the covenant to live the law of consecration.) What do you think "abide in our covenants" means? Whatever definition you give it, just add "don't murder" to the list and you are guaranteed a golden ticket to the Celestial Kingdom. Also please consider and reconcile this verse for me: Am I to understand this to be a different sealing power than what is used in the baptismal sealing and/or the temple sealing sealing? Based on the above two quoted canonized texts it appears to me that God gives power to authorized servants to seal and what they seal is bound "as above, so below" and that, outside of the people's response to the authorized servant, what is bound is bound until the authorized servant says otherwise and has no other bearing on one's personal righteousness before God. I understand it quoted Mormon Doctrine. There are things in that book that are good and things that are bad. The fact that another publication from the church (lesson manual for "Preparing for an Eternal Marriage") quotes this specific part from it makes it look like this specific part is fine. We use the term "sealing" for a lot of different things. There are things that require someone with sealing keys to do (such as marriage). There are things that really have nothing to do with eternity (Like Nephi being able to seal the heavens and cause famine). There are things that the Holy Spirit of Promise seals (such as baptism and every other covenant). There are things that sometimes needs a person with the sealing key and sometimes doesn't (such as children; my children are sealed to me and no one was present with the sealing keys when they were born). So, discussing "sealing" is hard for me since it is a generic term that encompasses several different things. But a "marriage sealing" is sealing two people together so that they can come forth in the resurrection and take their place in the Celestial Kingdom. And just because you got sealed at the temple doesn't mean that the sealing is permanent. That only happens once it is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Because we can still break our own sealing. For "parent-children sealings", I'm not exactly sure why it is needed. It is probably one of the most important sealings we have since Moroni mentioned it to Joseph, Elijah restored it, and we do a lot of geneology for it. But what does this sealing do and why? I think it might have to do with the idea that sealed children will somehow be saved easier, though I expect everyone to be sealed at some point so I'm not sure how that fits in. I'm a bit of a universalist (I believe God is really good at rescuing His children) so the idea that a sealing link all the way back to Adam to make it easier for us to accept Christ fits fine with me. For "baptism sealing", it is only between us and the Holy Spirit of Promise. No other person is involved. No sealing keys are needed. Only priesthood authority to have a valid baptism and then it is up to us to keep our covenants. In 2 Samuel 12:8, Nathan says "And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." For me, that looks like Nathan did give David wives. So those wives were fine. But when he took an unlicensed wife (Bethsheba), then he crossed the line. So for me, the two are in sync. Not all of his wives were abominable but some were. Also Jacob is talking about both David and Solomon and Solomon took a lot more wives and concubines than he was authorized. Yes, completely agree. If you think polygamy is a mistake, then that is fine with me. I disagree with it but it is a valid belief.

D&C 132 is talking about getting your "calling and election made sure" which has several other scriptural connections. So for me, it fits quite nicely. Being sealed in the temple isn't enough to get that promise. It says you need to be sealed by the "Holy Spirit of Promise" which doesn't happen immediately. And we even have another ordinance called the "second anointing" which is kind of the follow on to a marriage sealing. You mentioned marriage sealings and children sealings and second anointing sealings. Those are different types of sealings. So each one is different in how it works. Even our baptism has to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/holy-spirit-of-promise?lang=eng. The marriage sealing requires one member of each sex but most sealings don't require that. It only contradicts it if you read it one way. And I've read lots of attempts to explain that "one way" and none of them make sense to me. So I disagree that it *directly* contradicts. Additionally, it is acceptable for prophets to contradict previous prophets. See the Law of Circumcision being repealed in both New Testament and Book of Mormon. Or Peter being told to eat unclean food. Or Nephi being told to kill. I don't expect it to happen frequently, but there is enough recorded incidents to how that it does happen.