Marriage to virgins

[webbles]

31 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The quote starting with 'Few, if any, of the temple marriages have been made binding...' cited from historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com as Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p. 167 seems incorrect. Volume 16, page 167 of the Journal of Discourses, is the end of a sermon about tithing.

As far as I can tell, that quote isn't a real quote.  The earliest I've found is 2011 from mormonthink.  Searching the entire journal of discourses doesn't find any match for even partial versions of the quote.

[webbles]

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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 have not read the site in full, but I have read the site.  The main reason I haven't read it in full is I keep having to correct it and it just gets too frustrating for me.  I don't see the point to read it in full when it is confusing, it doesn't cite sources (I sometimes spend hours tracking down sources), it wanders all over the place, it invents things (the quote from a book that I went to purchase is an example, though that was Historical Monogamy Doctrine).  I get that you like it, so it somehow suits you.  But copying and pasting it to me isn't going to help since my first inclination is to distrust it.

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

My point is that we have pretty much the same contemporaneous evidence for Nauvoo polygamy for all that are involved.  If others had died in Carthage, we would be having the same debate, but around them.  The only reason why we accept that Brigham had Nauvoo polygamy is because of later testimonies and statements.  So, saying that Joseph was adamant about polygamy while he is alive does not tell me that he wasn't practicing polygamy.  Because everyone was doing that.  Brigham was accused of polygamy and he wrote out an affidavit denying it.  Joseph was a much more public person.  So that is why he would have much more public statements.  But it is only a difference in scale which doesn't do much for me since the scale makes sense when I look at how much more public he is.

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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. 

That's because no one accused him of teaching polygamy.  That's actually an interesting thing because of all of the people (both pro-Joseph and anti-Joseph), in all later testimonies, no one ever said Brigham taught polygamy.  It is almost always Joseph.  So, the fact that Joseph sued and not Brigham fits perfectly with the story that Joseph was actually teaching and not Brigham.

When Brigham was actually accused of something (Martha Brotherton), he wrote out an affidavit.

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

32 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

The Nephi killing Laban is going to really go tangential, but MDD section 8 is just wrong.  Its rationalization for why Nephi was ok to kill Laban isn't the rationalization that the Spirit gives to Nephi.  The Spirit first constraints him (no rationalization at all), then says "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands." and then says "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;  Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief".  The rationalization that MDD 8 writes out is nice and all but not what the Spirit actually said.  That is something that you have to add to the story, not what is actually in the story.

Edited Wednesday at 03:49 AM by webbles

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Hosea marrying a prostitute (apparently working, not retired), Israelites to steal Egyptian property (since iirc they say they will bring it back…that could be seen as breaking the commandment about coveting a neighbour’s possessions too), Jesus saying something about hating mothers and father to follow him, commanding to commit genocide…

Did some searching to come up with more…

Abraham abandoning Hagar and Ishmael

Hadn’t heard this one before…Ezekiel was commanded to break some purity commandments, like cooking food over human excrement (Ezekiel 4:12).

Edited Wednesday at 03:59 AM by Calm

[AnchoredinChrist]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Ok, I'm fine with saying that Joseph never taught that you absolutely must be a polygamist to reach the highest kingdom.  That could be something that Brigham later adds. 

Great, love this.

3 hours ago, webbles said:

But Hyrum was sealed to 2 women and so Joseph must have been teaching and practicing some form of polygamy. 

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.

4 hours ago, webbles said:

So, an argument could be made that Joseph taught Brigham this and he then misinterpreted it and included living polygamy.

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.

[AnchoredinChrist]

49 minutes ago, webbles said:

Searching the entire journal of discourses doesn't find any match for even partial versions of the quote.

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.

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

Considering that the historic monogamy site gives an actual book and page number which is false and that it looks like it originally came from mormonthink, my guess is that it was invented and that historic monogamy site just assumed it was real without doing any checking.

[AnchoredinChrist]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

So why doesn't it refer to those sections?  I would say it didn't refer to them because they don't exist. 

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.

Edited Wednesday at 04:29 AM by AnchoredinChrist

[webbles]

38 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

I'm just trying to see how you fit Joseph teaching Hyrum about polygamy (eternal sealings if you want to say that).  Because I want to see how you actually deal with the evidence.  I agree there are tons of plot holes because it fits a lot better to have Joseph being the original teacher of polygamy.  To me, there are a ton more plot holes trying to force Brigham to be the source of polygamy.  I'm trying to find evidence that you agree is real and is contemporaneous.  I've talked with people who would not accept that Hyrum said what he said.  They would add or remove extra words or change its meaning.  For example, Whitney Horning in "Hyrum Smith: A Prophet Unsung" talks about this speech and misrepresents it.  She says on page 298 that "Hyrum had to choose which one of his wives he would enter into an Eternal marriage covenant and be sealed for eternity, the living one, Mary, or the deceased one, Jerusha".  That is not what Hyrum says.  So, I'm glad to know that you do accept that Hyrum was talking about being sealed to two women.  Now, whether that meant he would be sealed to both in the hereafter, I'm fine with not arguing about it.  But the sealing to two women did happen.

[webbles]

29 minutes ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

Edited: ah, I misread this.  I'm reading those documents.  I just wish it had been with MDD 56 instead of having to go to the sister site and then having to notice that HMD 28 is somehow related and then to know to track down the sources.  As I've said, this site is confusing and not very well built.

Edited Wednesday at 04:54 AM by webbles

[webbles]

15 minutes ago, webbles said:

Edited: ah, I misread this.  I'm reading those documents.  I just wish it had been with MDD 56 instead of having to go to the sister site and then having to notice that HMD 28 is somehow related and then to know to track down the sources.  As I've said, this site is confusing and not very well built.

"The Puzzle of monogamous marriage" barely even touches Mormon polygamy.  It talks about how the government was able to impose monogamy and that changed the number of available males and females for marriage.  And then it mentions the Heath & Hadley article.  So, not a really great source about Mormon Polygamy.

The Heath & Hadley article "Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society" is interesting.  It focuses on wealth and how that impacts the number of kids and how many survive.  It shows that poorer fathers had more kids per wife (they included poor polygamous fathers in this group) and had more that reached the age of 15.  That looks like it would be a great source for the site's statement except the fact that it shows that a poor polygamous household also did better than a wealthy polygamous household.  So, if we want something that says "polygamy bad, monogamy good", that source is not it.  It just says "wealthy fathers bad, poor fathers good".

So, no, I don't find this to be a source for the websites statements.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Lorena wrote, "We were taught in those days that there was no way to get to the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom, only by plural marriage."

Sure, small southern Utah towns during the 1870s and 1880s (St. George, Monroe, Orderville), leaders heavily emphasized plural marriage as the pinnacle of devotion, local speakers simplified the message down, and many Saints may have believed plural marriage was necessary for the highest exaltation, because that was the dominant local cultural narrative preached from the rural pulpits.

However, official clarifications by the Church, even Brigham Young himself, Joseph F. Smith and Wilford Woodruff, at that time affirmed that faithful monogamous couples inherit exaltation. Once, Apostle John Holman argued that no one could achieve Celestial glory without taking multiple wives and Brigham Young directly corrected him and shut the debate down (Recorded in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Sept 25, 1869). Brigham did feel it was sin to entertain feelings against the doctrine, meaning rebellion against God's revelations, or refusing a priesthood calling for selfish reasons. A monogamous man who lived faithfully and accepted the restoration, including the revelation "in his heart" was completely acceptable, a man who rejected the revelation or refused an assignment out of rebellion was the one under condemnation.

The Discourse by Joseph F. Smith July 1878, "We are not under the necessity of practicing polygamy because God gave laws and commandments for its observance and regulation in ancient times... [I think referring to Section 132]"  

Let's not conflate what local Utah Saints felt and understood in 1880 with either Section 132 nor what 1880 official doctrine of the Church actually required.

I think the best way to determine what was taught is by looking at what people who lived in that era believed and understood. By your own reckoning apostles were teaching that it was required. The belief it was required was wide spread and must have come from somewhere. Lorena entered into it soley based on that belief:

Quote

The Lord had revealed to Joseph Smith our L. D. S. Prophet the principle of plural marriage and had commanded him to marry other wives. That principle had been practiced in the Church for years. My mother was married in the temple at Nauvoo in January, 1846, a plural wife. Her first baby was born in Winter Quarters 15 Jan. 1847. I myself was a product of that order of marriage. I believed that God had revealed it, and that some of the finest men and women on earth had been born and reared in polygamous families. I knew that people must have self control. They must master selfishness, and greed, and try to love all members of their husband's families, or there could be no happiness in plural marriages. We were taught that there was no way of getting into the Celestial Kingdom only by plural marriage.

20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Lorena Washburn Larsen’s autobiography is an incredible historical document. Lorena’s accounts do actually demonstrate the historical dynamics I have been outlining. Lorena repeatedly turned down proposals, and her father supported her right to do so. Lorena didn't seem obligated into sealings. The men proposing to Lorena were prominent local figures, a bishop, a Co-op store president, a merchant who had plenty of means, and a future county judge. This fits the precise pattern of established, financially stable men who weren't necessarily proposing spontaneously, someone was suggesting specific women to men in the ward whom they believed could provide for them.

And yet she married a Norwegian immigrant farmer. He left a year after their marriage and left Lorena and her sister wife to provide for themselves while he returned to Norway on a mission. Later they struggled immensely as Bent (her husband) went to prison (for plural marriage), they lived underground, and eventually Lorena raised her kids as a single mother as she was the second wife.  Bent Larsen (her husband) was not well to do or a pillar of the community. He was not a man of means. Just a man who had unquestioning faith (not using that in a derogatory sense) in what he was taught. Understanding what they were willing to sacrifice and why is undermined by downplaying their belief as local leaders simplifying the message. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:55 PM by SeekingUnderstanding

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think the best way to determine what was taught is by looking at what people who lived in that era believed and understood. By your own reckoning apostles were teaching that it was required. The belief it was required was wide spread and must have come from somewhere. Lorena entered into it soley based on that belief:

And yet she married a Norwegian immigrant farmer. He left a year after their marriage and left Lorena and her sister wife to provide for themselves while he returned to Norway on a mission. Later they struggled immensely as Bent (her husband) went to prison (for plural marriage), they lived underground, and eventually Lorena raised her kids as a single mother as she was the second wife.  Bent Larsen (her husband) was not well to do or a pillar of the community. He was not a man of means. Just a man who had unquestioning faith (not using that in a derogatory sense) in what he was taught. Understanding what they were willing to sacrifice and why is undermined by downplaying their belief as local leaders simplifying the message. 

I'm not sure how acknowledging what the official doctrine was and what local members genuinely believed "downplays" their sacrifice. They sacrificed because they loved God and believed their local leaders. Is it not entirely fair to parcel out what people in an era believed and official doctrine without being accused of undermining either?

In any religious movement, grassroots popular theology often expands beyond the official canon. In 1880s Utah, local pulpits heavily emphasized plural marriage as the supreme mark of faith. As a result, many ordinary members like Bent Larsen and Lorena grew up believing it was the only way to the highest degree of glory. Bent Larsen was not a man of means, but local leaders often called and cleared ordinary faithful men, not just wealthy men.

You can hold both truths together

A. The lived experience of Lorena and thousands like them were taught at the local ward level that plural marriage was mandatory for the highest celestial degree, and they courageously sacrificed everything based on that belief.

B. Whereas Brigham Young in the 1869 School of the Prophets to post-Manifesto presidency clarifications maintained that eternal sealing was the essential requirement, and that faithful monogamists who embraced the covenant in their heart inherited full exaltation.

Can we be allowed to look at history objectively and hold these two distinct historical realities at once?

Or is the driving force behind your argument at its core just a moral indictment of Brigham Young? Maybe you want to lay the emotional, domestic, and physical suffering of Saints like Lorena Washburn directly at the feet of Brigham Young? When you realized that top-level theological clarifications, like Brigham’s 1869 statement, don't support a universal requirement, are you then pivoting by questioning my moral responsibility for what I believe in this matter?

Edited Wednesday at 10:33 PM by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm not sure how acknowledging what the official doctrine was and what local members genuinely believed "downplays" their sacrifice. They sacrificed because they loved God and believed their local leaders. Is it not entirely fair to parcel out what people in an era believed and official doctrine without being accused of undermining either?

I'm not so sure "official doctrine" can ever be neatly contained, summarized or pinned down. I think that likely for Brigham Young, his views were not static and his rhetoric was not either. I think the historical data point to wide spread belief that the highest degree of the celestial kingdom required polygamy and that this was taught (at least at times) by the highest levels of the church and not just rogue local leaders. Lorena's family were among the first to practice plural marriage and were connected to apostles. Their and others understanding of the matter provide data in understanding the complex topic of how plural marriage was understood and thought of at the time.  And just for the record, there are many women and men that to this day, view plural marriage as a requirement in the celestial kingdom. As far as I know the church position on this is officially agnostic (but I'm happy to accept corrections). As a reference see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/10590_eng.pdf?lang=eng which instructs

Quote

Avoid speculation

Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Or is the driving force behind your argument at its core just a moral indictment of Brigham Young? Maybe you want to lay the emotional, domestic, and physical suffering of Saints like Lorena Washburn directly at the feet of Brigham Young? When you realized that top-level theological clarifications, like Brigham’s 1869 statement, don't support a universal requirement, are you then pivoting by questioning my moral responsibility for what I believe in this matter?

Nothing of the sort. At least here. Lorena's journey was a spiritual one led by dreams, visions, prayer and faith. She and Bent and Julia made their own decisions. Laying "blame" at someone else's feet for her adult grown up decisions would undermine and cheapen her own life experience.

Edited yesterday at 12:39 AM by SeekingUnderstanding

[webbles]

20 hours ago, AnchoredinChrist said:

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.

Your "plot holes" that you listed here are interesting.

For Augusta Cobb, that is a misunderstanding of her letter.  He didn't forbid her from ever meeting with Joseph Smith.  He made her promise to never meet with Joseph alone.  And the reasoning was because Joseph would overcome her and make her his wife, instead of Brigham.  In her letter she talks about how she would rather have been sealed to Joseph since Brigham is ignoring her.  And she would rather have Joseph's child.  And she also says that she did meet with Joseph (though I guess not in private) and she talks about how Joseph asked for her twice before she is sealed to Brigham.  I was actually able to find the transcript of the letter.  Page 89 of https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JSP_Book_91.pdf

Here's the relevant parts

Quote

Now B Br [sic] Young Can you not see how all this disgrace and distress might have been avoided?  Most assuredly you can  If you had allowed me to have gone up to Nauvoo free and untrameled
In my Spiret I should have seen Br Joseph the first thing.  But instead of that you exacted a promise of me that I would not see him alen Saying he would certainly over come me I replied if he did he would be the first man.  You then Said I had never had to deal with a Prophet of the Lord  Now suppose he had over come me  And I should by that means have raised up a Son or King if you please Who would have been the wiser?  Not Mrs Lews Most certainly
And I should have been Sealed to him And all would have been right Instead of that you waited for him to come and Seal
us a few days and he did not come you then went to work and sealed us yourself
After that he came And you said the Charm was broken, I have laid this over

Quote

I believe in every one's being rewarded according to their works, do not you had I been left free to have been sealed to Br Joseph Smith when I arrived at Nauvoo You can see as well as me that it would have saved me a great deal of suffering and humiliation, But you have required a promise of me not to see Br Joseph Alone I would not break that promise altho he sent for me twice,

So Augusta Cobb's letter is actually evidence of Joseph practicing polygamy, not the other way around.

For Brigham speaking bad about Emma, yes, he was angry with her.  I'm not sure how that is a plot hole for polygamy.  The two did not get along, especially after the martyrdom and Brigham said some really harsh words.

For Brigham openly acquiring wives after the martyrdom, where do you get that?  And don't quote #85 from the site since that is not talking about "openly" acquiring.  As far as I know, polygamy was still pretty much in secret and only those in the know really knew about it.  It wasn't till the exodus that it was openly shown.  And, if we ignore the "openly" part, the acquisition of wives actually fits better with Joseph being polygamist.  Joseph probably had 18 wives in 1843.  That's far more than Brigham ever did.  And after he died, Brigham and others married many of the widows.  That causes many of them to have higher number of wives than they would normally have.  I find Joseph's widows and their pattern (especially the Nauvoo temple records) to be one of the major plot holes for those who don't accept Joseph's polygamy.  I've yet to see a good explanation for them.  Usually the explanation is that they were under the thumb of Brigham and his cronies and so they had to testify about their marriage to Joseph but that doesn't really fit with the evidence.  For instance, Agnes Coolbrith (widow of Don Carlos Smith and Joseph Smith) was living in California and had no more connections with the Mormon church and yet she told her nephews (Joseph Smith III and his brothers) that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy and had other wives (page 5 (or 59) in https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Joseph-Smith’s-Plural-Wives-after-the-Martyrdom.pdf).  

[telnetd]

On 10/19/2026 at 2:07 PM, webbles said:

And your last questions don't make any sense.

That portion of the Welsh Saints Project had this section:

The "Parable of the ten talents" means wives.

...

Joseph F. Smith said that young men who hold the Lesser Priesthood an [and] aspire to 
the Higher should be put under covenant to adopt Plural marriage or forfeit all right 
to the High Priesthood, said this time would soon come. Young men had better be married 
by the Bishop than go into the House of God and make covenants they do not intend to 
keep.

I associated female "virgins" to my question based on what was written in Doctrine
and Covenants 132:61-63.

One can conclude these "young men" would naturally be seeking virgins for their 
plural marriage.

Why should they be virgins and how young would these virgins be?

[webbles]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

That portion of the Welsh Saints Project had this section:

The "Parable of the ten talents" means wives.

...

Joseph F. Smith said that young men who hold the Lesser Priesthood an [and] aspire to 
the Higher should be put under covenant to adopt Plural marriage or forfeit all right 
to the High Priesthood, said this time would soon come. Young men had better be married 
by the Bishop than go into the House of God and make covenants they do not intend to 
keep.

I associated female "virgins" to my question based on what was written in Doctrine
and Covenants 132:61-63.

One can conclude these "young men" would naturally be seeking virgins for their 
plural marriage.

Why should they be virgins and how young would these virgins be?

"Why should they be virgins and how young would these virgins be?"

The first part of that question still makes no sense to me.  "Why should they be virgins?"   Are you asking about why D&C 132 talks about virgins?  What does this have to do with the Joseph F Smith's talk?  I don't see any thing in there about him using the term virgin.

The second part of that question is weird.  There's no mention in Joseph F. Smith about youth.  He says "Young men" but that isn't the same term we use today in the church.  It wasn't until 1906 before it became normal for boys to be regularly ordained to the Aaronic priesthood (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/adjustments-to-priesthood-organization?lang=eng).  Before then, it was sporadic.  Most holders of the Aaronic priesthood would be 20+.  So, the "young men" would probably be men in the 20s or 30s (Joseph F Smith would be ~50 at this time so someone in their 20s and 30s would be young to him).  I would assume the wives that these young men would marry would also be in the 20s.  That was the average age.  It sometimes went lower (usually when the husband was also young).