What If Polygamy Never Happened

[Scottie]

This is a difficult issue. And it raises difficult issues. What are the sources of morality? If not God, or some sort of supernatural moral law, where is the basis for morality? What, given your conviction that we most likely live in a purposeless universe in which people are simply meat machines fated to rot, is the source of your morality? On what basis, beyond sentimentality, would you condemn this or that atrocity? Is there a basis? Or is morality simply an expression of personal tastes?

Having been BIC, I believe that my moral code did come from my upbringing in the church. Perhaps I'm not the best person to ask this question. Someone who was raised in an atheist household would be a better person to ask.

But it's not only an issue for religion. Every atrocity known to humankind has been commanded by atheistic ideologies, too, at some point or another -- and, in fact, at least during the past century, in quantities that vastly dwarf the misdeeds of religious people. (Just recently, Sam Harris, in the best-selling atheistic book The End of Faith, has proposed that certain religious people may need to be killed, simply and solely because of their beliefs. I find the notion obscene, and you probably do, too. But on what basis, besides subjective preferences, would you condemn it?) And every conceivable atrocity has been committed for entirely non-ideological reasons, too. Humans don't really need moral cover for murder, rape, and theft; they're entirely capable of doing such things on their own.

Of course they are. But I don't see the followers of those doing these atrocities saying, "Well....some book that was written thousands of years ago says that it was ok, so it must be ok now too..." These are decent human beings justifying the most vile actions by their leaders solely on the basis that God sanctioned it once in the Bible???

I don't think that anything very significant with regard to the claims of religion -- including your own atheism -- can be demonstrated beyond someones more or less reasonable doubt.

That was my whole point. Why Me seems to think that just because we can't PROVE the BoM false, that makes it true.

That, however, doesn't deliver us from the inescapable necessity of choosing to the best of our ability how we will react to those claims, and acting on the basis of that choice.

Exactly. And, as I mentioned before, absent the confirmation of the spirit, I am left to interpret the evidences that I have been given. To me, they heavily lean to the church not being true, the BoM being man-made and JS being a fraud.

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course they are. But I don't see the followers of those doing these atrocities saying, "Well....some book that was written thousands of years ago says that it was ok, so it must be ok now too..." These are decent human beings justifying the most vile actions by their leaders solely on the basis that God sanctioned it once in the Bible???

My own suspicion -- and there is some considerable evidence to sustain it -- is that, on the whole, atrocities and crimes are less common (by a substantial margin) among religious believers than among non-believers.

[why me]

You've given this argument before, and always seem to ignore my counterargument.

By that logic, all scripture should be true. After all, I'm betting you can't show that the Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, The Torah, etc are a fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, can you?

I don't have to prove that those scripture you mentioned are frauds because I don't claim that they are frauds. But you claim that JS was a fraud and the book of mormon too. And yet, this has not been proven. The burden of proof is on you. Now if I would claim that the books you mentioned were false, I would need to prove it. An accusation is just an accusation unless proven otherwise. You seem to throw out names such a fraud without proof. I can understand that it may feel good to do so, but really, you are only making accusations.

Martin Luther supported polygamy. I see no protestant condemnation of Martin Luther. Why? The link that I provided showed that polygamy was in the OT. Why not condemn the OT? Why single out JS?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/colum...03-turley_x.htm

Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the "poly" to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean

[Scottie]

My own suspicion -- and there is some considerable evidence to sustain it -- is that, on the whole, atrocities and crimes are less common (by a substantial margin) among religious believers than among non-believers.

I would believe that to be true as well.

But what does that have to do with anything??

Many men are self proclaimed leaders of a religion, doing immoral acts, claiming that God told them it was ok. Are we just supposed to accept that every one of these men is justified in doing these things because there is a precedence in the Bible for whatever atrocity they are doing?? Why shouldn't we look at JS with the same critical eye we would any other charlatan that claims God spoke to him?

For something totally unrelated, is JS' wives correct, or should I leave the ' out?

[why me]

I would believe that to be true as well.

But what does that have to do with anything??

Many men are self proclaimed leaders of a religion, doing immoral acts, claiming that God told them it was ok. Are we just supposed to accept that every one of these men is justified in doing these things because there is a precedence in the Bible for whatever atrocity they are doing?? Why shouldn't we look at JS with the same critical eye we would any other charlatan that claims God spoke to him?

For something totally unrelated, is JS' wives correct, or should I leave the ' out?

Your biasness is in your post. You equate JS to a charlatan. Any proof to this accusation? What about the OT personalities who were polygamists ? Were they also charlatans?

[Scottie]

I don't have to prove that those scripture you mentioned are frauds because I don't claim that they are frauds. But you claim that JS was a fraud and the book of mormon too. And yet, this has not been proven. The burden of proof is on you. Now if I would claim that the books you mentioned were false, I would need to prove it. An accusation is just an accusation unless proven otherwise. You seem to throw out names such a fraud without proof. I can understand that it may feel good to do so, but really, you are only making accusations.

Except that you can't believe that your scripture is true and that theirs is true as well. They are mutually exclusive. So by claiming yours it true, you are simultaneously declaring everyone elses scripture false. No, I can't prove the BoM false. However, I can examine the evidence and determine that there is enough to make a personal decision that it is false. Which is what I have done.

Martin Luther supported polygamy. I see no protestant condemnation of Martin Luther. Why? The link that I provided showed that polygamy was in the OT. Why not condemn the OT? Why single out JS?

I don't condemn polygamy. It has problems, but if you are an adult and want to live that lifestyle, more power to you.

If you read a few posts up, what I condemn is the lying, coercion, etc that surrounded polygamy in the early church.

[Daniel Peterson]

I would believe that to be true as well.

But what does that have to do with anything??

It suggests that, while religious belief, like everything else, can be dangerous when misused, it is, on the whole, a good influence in history and communities.

Many men are self proclaimed leaders of a religion, doing immoral acts, claiming that God told them it was ok. Are we just supposed to accept that every one of these men is justified in doing these things because there is a precedence in the Bible for whatever atrocity they are doing??

Of course not.

Why shouldn't we look at JS with the same critical eye we would any other charlatan that claims God spoke to him?

To translate your hostile statement into something less question-begging: "Why shouldn't we be as careful in evaluating the claims to revelation of Joseph Smith as we would be with anybody else making such claims?"

We should be.

For something totally unrelated, is JS' wives correct, or should I leave the ' out?

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style would say JS's wives.

[Scottie]

Your biasness is in your post. You equate JS to a charlatan. Any proof to this accusation? What about the OT personalities who were polygamists ? Were they also charlatans?

As to not invoke the dreaded Godwin's law, I won't list specific names here. But I'd be willing to bet that I could list a dozen religious leaders that you would claim were charlatains, even though you have no proof that they are. All of these leaders have a devout following that would say exactly the same thing about them that you are saying about JS.

[Hammer]

Except that you can't believe that your scripture is true and that theirs is true as well. They are mutually exclusive. So by claiming yours it true, you are simultaneously declaring everyone elses scripture false. No, I can't prove the BoM false. However, I can examine the evidence and determine that there is enough to make a personal decision that it is false. Which is what I have done.

I don't condemn polygamy. It has problems, but if you are an adult and want to live that lifestyle, more power to you.

If you read a few posts up, what I condemn is the lying, coercion, etc that surrounded polygamy in the early church.

I'm sorry Scottie, but I have been a scriptorian for longer than I can remember and the scripture do not contradict. Some don't have a full understanding of the texts is all.

[Scottie]

It suggests that, while religious belief, like everything else, can be dangerous when misused, it is, on the whole, a good influence in history and communities.

No argument here.

To translate your hostile statement into something less question-begging: "Why shouldn't we be as careful in evaluating the claims to revelation of Joseph Smith as we would be with anybody else making such claims?"

We should be.

Then I'm confused. According to LoaP, we should give JS a free pass because God commanded it in the Bible. There seems to be general confusion as to why people have such a problem with this. How can you look at the way JS went about instituting polygamy and not see charlatan attributes in him?

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style would say JS's wives.

Thanks!

[Olavarria]

Any atrocity that an individual could commit has been commanded by God at some point in the Bible.

JS could have sacrificed children on a alter and people like you would say, "God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, so why couldn't he command JS to sacrifice other peoples sons? I'll never understand why people are soooo hung up on this topic."

OK, look. Clarity is more important than agreement.

Are you implying that plural marriage is an "atrocity" on par with child sacrifice?

Wy are you so hung up mover it? Just curious.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Then I'm confused. According to LoaP, we should give JS a free pass because God commanded it in the Bible.

Don't put words in my mouth, young scottie, my friend.

[freakin a man]

What if polygamy was not practiced in the Old Testament. How would the world would be different? Lets see no House of Israel for starters. There would be no Jews in the world and that would mean much of our entertainment industry would not exist for good or for bad. Oh how people blast polygamy but much of their lives is based on polygamy long ago

[Daniel Peterson]

Then I'm confused. According to LoaP, we should give JS a free pass because God commanded it in the Bible.

Again, our assumption is that he was a prophet. Yours is that he was not. If he was, then the biblical precedent seems quite enlightening. If he wasn't, it doesn't do him a bit of good.

There seems to be general confusion as to why people have such a problem with this. How can you look at the way JS went about instituting polygamy and not see charlatan attributes in him?

I can easily see why somebody, looking at the origins of plural marriage, might judge Joseph Smith a charlatan. As I've said many times, this is the most difficult issue, for believers, in Joseph's biography.

Here's the deal: Let's say that reports reach me that Robert has done something really horrific. Now let's say that I've been aware of Robert for years, and that I've long since formed a negative view of his character. These latest reports simply confirm my judgment. Alternatively, let's say that I knew nothing whatever about Robert before I heard the reports. The reports now form my judgment of him, unless something arrives to mitigate their implications. They're all I know about him. Finally, let's say that I've known Robert very well for many years, and have always known him to be selfless, kind, and honorable. In that light, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, to assume (at least until further facts are in and, for example, I've had a chance to hear from him) that, even if the reports about him are shocking, there is something (and perhaps something fully vindicating) to say in his defense. The reactions are very different to precisely the same "fact" (the shocking reports).

It's all about prior assumptions. You've decided that Joseph was not a prophet. You believe that there is probably no God. Accordingly, plural marriage cannot have been a divine revelation. That cannot help but shape your evaluation of Joseph Smith's behavior at the beginnings of Mormon plural marriage. I believe that there is a God, and that Joseph Smith was his prophet. That too shapes my evaluation of his behavior. Early plural marriage is at best murky, and can easily seem quite evil -- and, particularly in our own sex-drenched contemporary culture, obvious quite non-divine explanations suggest themselves immediately. Our prior assumptions about Joseph Smith push us in different directions on this issue.

I happen to think that there are real historical problems with the notion that Joseph was simply motivated by lust. (Richard Bushman has alluded to some of these in Rough Stone Rolling.) I also think that awkwardness and hurt were bound to ensue with the commencement of plural marriage even if it was a commandment of God, and particularly given the fact that the earliest practice was (for reasons that are, again, understandable even to someone who believes in Joseph's prophethood) more or less clandestine. Was it messy? Yes. Does it, on its own, seem to count against his prophetic claims? Yes. Does that prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet? Not in my judgment.

[Scottie]

Again, our assumption is that he was a prophet. Yours is that he was not. If he was, then the biblical precedent seems quite enlightening. If he wasn't, it doesn't do him a bit of good.

I can easily see why somebody, looking at the origins of plural marriage, might judge Joseph Smith a charlatan. As I've said many times, this is the most difficult issue, for believers, in Joseph's biography.

Here's the deal: Let's say that reports reach me that Robert has done something really horrific. Now let's say that I've been aware of Robert for years, and that I've long since formed a negative view of his character. These latest reports simply confirm my judgment. Alternatively, let's say that I knew nothing whatever about Robert before I heard the reports. The reports now form my judgment of him, unless something arrives to mitigate their implications. They're all I know about him. Finally, let's say that I've known Robert very well for many years, and have always known him to be selfless, kind, and honorable. In that light, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, to assume (at least until further facts are in and, for example, I've had a chance to hear from him) that, even if the reports about him are shocking, there is something (and perhaps something fully vindicating) to say in his defense. The reactions are very different to precisely the same "fact" (the shocking reports).

It's all about prior assumptions. You've decided that Joseph was not a prophet. You believe that there is probably no God. Accordingly, plural marriage cannot have been a divine revelation. That cannot help but shape your evaluation of Joseph Smith's behavior at the beginnings of Mormon plural marriage. I believe that there is a God, and that Joseph Smith was his prophet. That too shapes my evaluation of his behavior. Early plural marriage is at best murky, and can easily seem quite evil -- and, particularly in our own sex-drenched contemporary culture, obvious quite non-divine explanations suggest themselves immediately. Our prior assumptions about Joseph Smith push us in different directions on this issue.

I happen to think that there are real historical problems with the notion that Joseph was simply motivated by lust. (Richard Bushman has alluded to some of these in Rough Stone Rolling.) I also think that awkwardness and hurt were bound to ensue with the commencement of plural marriage even if it was a commandment of God, and particularly given the fact that the earliest practice was (for reasons that are, again, understandable even to someone who believes in Joseph's prophethood) more or less clandestine. Was it messy? Yes. Does it, on its own, seem to count against his prophetic claims? Yes. Does that prove that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet? Not in my judgment.

If I understand what you are saying here, you seem to be insinuating that Josephs character was squeaky clean up until he started polygamy. I think there is sufficient evidence of charlatan type activities from his adolescence.

[Daniel Peterson]

If I understand what you are saying here, you seem to be insinuating that Josephs character was squeaky clean up until he started polygamy. I think there is sufficient evidence of charlatan type activities from his adolescence.

I don't think that anybody's character is "squeaky clean," apart from Jesus.

But I think that Joseph was a good and sincere man.

If I'm even remotely qualified as a judge of human character, what I've read from him in Dean Jessee's The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith shows him to have been deeply devout, humble, and sincere. And Mark McConkie's extensive collection of materials in Remembering Joseph, along with Hyrum Andrus's much earlier They Knew the Prophet, is entirely consistent with that perception, as, I think, is Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling.

[Scottie]

I don't think that anybody's character is "squeaky clean," apart from Jesus.

But I think that Joseph was a good and sincere man.

If I'm even remotely qualified as a judge of human character, what I've read from him in Dean Jessee's The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith shows him to have been deeply devout, humble, and sincere. And Mark McConkie's extensive collection of materials in Remembering Joseph, along with Hyrum Andrus's much earlier They Knew the Prophet, is entirely consistent with that perception, as, I think, is Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling.

And don't those types of men make the best charlatans? Those that have everyone fooled into thinking they are the salt of the earth?

I have no doubt that JS was an exceptionally personable and charasmatic man. If he weren't, Mormonism would have never left the ground.

[LifeOnaPlate]

And coming soon: The Joseph Smith Papers Project! (Of which I want to be involved as soon as possible.)

See JC Bennet's method of spiritual wifery vs. Joseph Smith's plural marriage. I see fundamental differences.

And don't those types of men make the best charlatans? Those that have everyone fooled into thinking they are the salt of the earth?

I have no doubt that JS was an exceptionally personable and charasmatic man. If he weren't, Mormonism would have never left the ground.

You overlook a few things, especially what Joseph himself thought:

I do not want you to think that I'm very righteous, for I am not. There was one good man, and his name was Jesus" (Documentary History of the Church, 5:401).

[Daniel Peterson]

And don't those types of men make the best charlatans? Those that have everyone fooled into thinking they are the salt of the earth?

I think you're really, really stretching if you're going to try to turn the fact that scores if not hundreds of people who knew him left testimonials to his kindness, sincerity, humility, dedication, etc., into evidence against him.

And, by the way, when I speak of Jessee's collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, I have reference, for the most part, to things that he didn't write for publication, that cannot plausibly be considered part of any "performance" for the public. They provide, I think, a real mirror into his soul -- and that soul seems to be sincerely devout. I understand that this is a subjective judgment, but we form judgments of the character of others all the time. We have no choice but to do it, and our success in business, in life, and so forth, depends upon our ability to do it. I've devoted a considerable amount of effort to getting to know Joseph (so far as it's possible to do at this distance), and I'll have to be convinced that I'm an unusually poor judge of character.

[Scottie]

I think you're really, really stretching if you're going to try to turn the fact that scores if not hundreds of people who knew him left testimonials to his kindness, sincerity, humility, dedication, etc., into evidence against him.

I don't think so. You admitted above that JS did indeed do charlatan type activities, and you can see why someone might think him a charlatan.

Again, if I pointed out all the other false prophets and religious leaders that have done questionable activities, ones that you would call a charlatan, I'm pretty sure the followers would claim the same thing you do about JS. That these leaders live an impecable, although imperfect life, and have the highest standards! That there is no way that THEIR leader could be anything but what he claims to be.

[Yme]

Your fundamental objection to Joseph Smith's polygamy rests on your conviction that he was not a prophet. Our reaction to Joseph Smith's polygamy -- which is, I think, far and away the most perplexing thing in his biography for a believer -- rests on our conviction that he was a prophet. The two positions remain incommensurate for that very reason.

I have no doubt that you and many within the Lds Church believe Smith was a prophet. But I would hope where we have information that exists to evaluate this claim that we would all agree it is better to base a decision on "what we know" as opposed to "things we don't know". And, from my experience with the Lds Church, there is a distinct and obvious culture of not examining, discussing, encouraging or making available factual historical information regarding polygamy that may cast doubt on Smith's promotion to being a prophet.

When I looked into the chronology of polygamy's development within the Lds Church, it became clear to me that this was not a command of God but a personal lifestyle choice for Smith. The historical documents and factual history reflects too many inconsistencies and raises so many questions that don't stand up to standards of reason. From it's illegal practice in Illinois (when supposedly church doctrine required obediance to the laws of the land), Smiths public denouncement of it as publisher and editor of the church's Times & Seasons (while referring to the 1835 D&Cs which prohibited it) while privately practicing it even before he claims he received the supposed revelation in 1843, a revealtion that only singles out his current wife with destruction for not abiding to the command while he practiced it without informing her, his directive to the illega destruction of the Expositor because of it's exposure of the practice, to his public denial of having more than one wife just weeks before his demise. Add to that the changes to to the D&Cs at the turn of the century describing it as being revealed as early s 1831 only when it became clear the earlier timelines and claims were proving diffult to sustain. It was if God had given a revelation to "test drive" for some 23 years (1831 -1854) .

When I first met with missionaries and bishops in the Lds Church, bringing up these questions and issues was met with an almost preprogrammed and consistent response of either "I had never heard of those things" or "well we don't know much about that time". Why were these facts and documents so easy for me to find as a non-member but almost non-existant to these members. And then their response to my wife and daughter was the classic "well he's not ready to hear the gospel" answer!!!!!! In other words, the questioner becomes the problem as opposed to the questions.

My point is that this becomes a very hard sell, with full disclosure, to reasonable minds who are targeted for conversion. ANd again, isn't it best to make decisions on "what we know' as opposed to "what we don't know". Accordingly, that is why we find very little of this history provided in any 'official" church website but more of the distancing to the very history itself.

So I don't think it becomes merely a difference of acceptance of Smith as a prophet, at least not until a full disclosure of all the facts available are understood. This is why I see polygamy as such a stumbling block for the Lds church and a noticiable desire to distance itself from it. Hence, i would conclude it would be far better off had it not happened. But I suspect, as I have said before, while in the greater majority outside this board, I am probably in the minority here!!!!

[Scottie]

Well said, Yme!!

[LifeOnaPlate]

And, by the way, when I speak of Jessee's collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, I have reference, for the most part, to things that he didn't write for publication, that cannot plausibly be considered part of any "performance" for the public. They provide, I think, a real mirror into his soul -- and that soul seems to be sincerely devout.

This is why I forked out the dough on my mission to purchase this book, and I found the same thing.

[Daniel Peterson]

I have no doubt that you and many within the Lds Church believe Smith was a prophet.

Thanks. When people are willing to acknowledge that I actually believe what I say I believe, I'm very grateful and deeply moved.

But I would hope where we have information that exists to evaluate this claim that we would all agree it is better to base a decision on "what we know" as opposed to "things we don't know". And, from my experience with the Lds Church, there is a distinct and obvious culture of not examining, discussing, encouraging or making available factual historical information regarding polygamy that may cast doubt on Smith's promotion to being a prophet.

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know how much typical non-Mormon Americans are into historical research. My impression is Not a Whole Lot.

In any event, I do examine and discuss history.

When I looked into the chronology of polygamy's development within the Lds Church, it became clear to me that this was not a command of God but a personal lifestyle choice for Smith.

That's your judgment. It's not mine. And it's not that of others.

ANd again, isn't it best to make decisions on "what we know' as opposed to "what we don't know".

I agree that it's better to make informed decisions than uninformed decisions.

Are you taking all of the relevant information into account? Would you and I agree on your answer to that question?

Accordingly, that is why we find very little of this history provided in any 'official" church website but more of the distancing to the very history itself.

Why on earth do you expect to find detailed historical treatment of early plural marriage on the Church's website? No other historiographical treatises are found there.

But scholarly works on the topic are available from such scholars as Danel Bachman, Scott Faulring, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Richard Bushman, and the like.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is new to me also. Does the Lds Church now teach that those who practiced plural marriage were "more righteous" than those who practiced monogamy?

Not all of the righteous were in a position to enter into plural marriage. I'm certain ability to sustain multiple households entered into the equation. For example, I have several Mormon pioneer ancestors, all of whom were faithful Church members. Yet I only have one polygamist line in my genealogy.

While this concept seems to be consistent with remarks I've read from Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith, I had been told directly from a bishop in my wife's ward that such was not the case. It also seems to indicate that there were very few righteous men in the early Lds Church if we believe current Church claims that polygamy was practice by very few.

My understanding is that there were strict controls in place pertaining to the practice of plural marriage, that those who entered into it were called to do so by Church leaders. It goes without saying that only faithful, active, dedicated members -- and those with sufficient means -- would be called to practice it. I don't know why this concept should be astounding to you.

This sounds like a great inspirational story to tell on Sundays but makes little sense upon examination. IF there were no gender imbalance disorders to support the NEED for polygamy, how can one man with two wives generate offspring any faster than two men with one wife each?

Again, gender imbalance or the lack thereof is irrelevant to the discussion. Among those relatively few who were called practice plural marriage, one man and two or more wives could quickly establish a large posterity of faithful believers who would, in turn, pass the faith on to their own progeny.

And just because the overall male/female ratio was roughly equal doesn't necessarily mean that righteous male/righteous female ratio was equal. Theoretically, under a system of God-directed plural marriage, a righteous woman would not have to settle for marriage to a man whose faithfulness and righteousness was marginal or worse. Because religious values are more likely to be handed down to children in families where both parents are faithful, this has the effect of more quickly raising up righteous seed to God, because there is less need to depend on less-valiant men for propagation.

Furthermore, much of the oppression you refer to was directly related to anti-polygamy sentiment that existed in society both then and now. A practice of monogamy only would have avoided much of what you say polygamy was needed for in the first place.

The enemies of the Church were finding plenty of excuses for their hatred without polygamy entering into the equation. Polygamy never became much of an issue until the Nauvoo period of Church history. Yet some of the worst atrocities in the history of the Church had already been committed by mobs in Missouri and elsewhere. Think Haun's Mill massacre. Think Extermination Order. Think burning, looting, dispossession of property, assaults, murder. Think mass expulsion from Missouri. Think trumped up charges, mock trial, imprisonment in Liberty Jail, near assassination of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders by state militia.

If you think polygamy was the issue that was driving all of this, your knowledge of Church history is woefully inadequate.

I also have to wonder that if polygamy was truely commanded by God, why did Joseph Smith spend his entire adult life denying his participation in it for obviously several years???

Obviously because he was constantly on the run from bigots and mobs. Why give them one more excuse to vent their hatred?

And spare me any self-righteous pronouncements about honesty. If storm troopers invade my home, I'm not going to tell them the truth about the Jewish family I'm hiding in the attic.

(Incidentally, it is not necessary to use a superfluity of question marks; one does the job just fine. )

Then its practice was much greater than what the Lds Church would want us to believe today.

No. Descendants from one couple increase geometrically with each generation. That is if one couple has two children, the two could have at least four, the four could have at least eight, the eight 16, and so on.

With that in mind, imagine what can happen if you increase the factor by two or more wives. The geometric progression is enlarged dramatically.

Is this what the Lds Church really teaches, that monogamy was a "default condition"????

I could cite quotations. But what I'm giving you is my own reasoning. If you want an official LDS position, contact Church Public Affairs.

And could you define what you think "raise up seed unto" Him?

I've already defined it. If you want to have a discussion with me, you have to pay attention to what I say and not ask already-answered questions. Otherwise, I will quickly grow bored with the conversation.

How does polygamy generate offspring any faster than monogamy where there is no gender imbalance?

See above. It's a matter of producing righteous posterity, and one righteous man with several wives can produce children much faster than one righteous man with one wife.