bytebear

Not really.  He never lived with the other women.  They had sealings performed, but that was it.  How do you show that Smith was sealed to a woman for eternity, but never actually was a polygamous wife like Brigham Young's wives.   How do you portray that?   How do you portray that he had been sealed to men as brothers?

I will freely admit to not having watched the film in nearly a decade.  But it’s probably worth noting that only a tiny sliver of the Nauvoo population had any idea this was going on during Smith’s lifetime.  All of Smith’s polygamous marriages were closely held secrets, and not even Emma knew their full extent.   It’s not wrong to show Joseph at a dinner table with Emma, frolicking with his kids in the house he shared with Emma, taking a walk on a Sunday afternoon with Emma by his side.  That *was* the dominant theme of his family life, both in public perception and in the bulk of how he spent his free time.
Given the narrative approach the film’s writers chose to deploy (a new convert journeys to Nauvoo in 1844, with flashbacks from throughout the church’s history before that)—from a creative standpoint, how do you work Joseph’s polygamy into the script in a way that is historically credible but doesn’t dominate or distract from the main points the writers wanted to emphasize?

The church publishes an 1830 replication (photocopied from an original).
https://deseretbook.com/p/1830-heritage-book-mormon-zions-mercantile-83919?ref=Grid | Search-3&variant_id=12912-hardcover 
 

The church publishes an 1830 replication (photocopied from an original).
https://deseretbook.com/p/1830-heritage-book-mormon-zions-mercantile-83919?ref=Grid | Search-3&variant_id=12912-hardcover 
 

And there's nothing wrong with reading any edition you want. or any material from the church you want.  And you can compare all you want,  and you can decide if you think the changes were done maliciously or not.  Obviously, we're going to believe they were not done maliciously, but for good or at least reasonable reasons.   And we want to share those reasons with you, so you understand our perspective.  As many people have posted, there are several essays and writings on this to peruse.

Long thread.  Lots of stuff going on, but I'm going to throw out some ideas.
First, polygamy wasn't "taught" but I grew up in the church in Utah, and it was hardly a secret.  But Joseph Smith's polygamy is an enigma.  Brigham Young had a lot of wives, and a lot of kids from them.  I doubt a Mormon could name off the top of their head one wife let alone several.
As was stated earlier, Joseph Smith, as far as has been proven, never had children with anyone but Emma.  And many (most?  All?) of his sealings were not carnal.   Even the "gotcha" ones to 14 year old girls were considered dynastic in nature.  Heber C Kimball requested his daughter be sealed to the prophet, so they could be joined in the eternities.  Sealings were considered tying the spiritual blood lines if you will, more than actual marriages.  Men were even sealed to Joseph as sons or brothers.  Everyone wanted to be sealed to Joseph, even more so after his death.
I will say growing up, we all knew the boilerplate anti-Mormon stuff.  And it's still boilerplate and hasn't changed much.  I think as a global church, members don't hear as much about it any more, so the "gotcha" doctrines just aren't discussed as much.  Back in the 80s it was really really prevalent.  Think Westboro Baptist church at a gay pride parade.  So we all knew the routine, the punch counter punch, if you will.  and some people still get that gut reaction when they see a really common anti-Mormon concern brought up. 
So, as to the Book of Mormon, you gotta figure that the book went through at least three transcriptions:
1. Mormon/Moroni transcribes and abridges the original (or possibly copy) of Nephi's writings.
2. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry transcribe the Golden plates to English in the original manuscript (which was damaged when it was sealed in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo house, and we only have fragments)
3. The printers manuscript which we now have almost the full text of)
4. The original 1830 edition.
5. Subsequent editions.
Joseph Smith was constant reworking the manuscript and correcting errors.  And there are errors from one stage to the next.
In 1981 the church published all the scriptures in tandem, tying all of them together with footnotes and what not.  It was this edition that the church finally went back to earlier sources, and tried to correct as much as they knew.  An example is a verse where half of the text went missing sometime in the late 1800s and just never got put back in.  No one can claim it was an attempt to change doctrine.  It just slipped through the cracks. Other changes like "son of God" may have been on the original manuscript, or maybe Joseph Smith thought it was a better clarification of the verse.  Doesn't really matter either way, as it reads no different doctrinally to me.  Also, I believe a lot of "and it came to pass" text was just removed for brevity.   I personally think Reformed Egyptian had a something like a pilcrow paragraph (backward P) symbol used at the start of every line which got translated to "And it came to pass..."
But the church makes every effort to ensure that the history of events is entirely transparent.  And I remember when that edition came out (I was 11), and there was a huge essay in the Ensign explaining every single textual change and why it was decided.

It depends on what you refer to.  This can be a difficult thing for people to address.  Anti-Mormons (and to be clear, I'm not saying you are anti-Mormon or saying this is where you got your information, however THIS particular idea of Joseph Smith being a polygamist in this manner actually originated with anti-Mormons and is most often mostly promulgated by anti-Mormons.  Hence, why I am addressing it as so because it is actually THEIR issue, and not one that most of the world, or even secular historians normally even care about in regards to the larger history we study) want people to believe that Joseph Smith was married to a bunch of woman and did certain acts people do in marriage.
Now, Joseph Smith had several children, thus we KNOW he was not impotent.  Some lived, some died. These were from his wife, Emma or legally obtained rather than fathered by Joseph Smith with other women.
If he did, as the Anti-Mormons claim, the biggest question then is...where is the evidence.  If what they claim is true, as there were no birth control pills back then, where are the children.  If there are children, where is the DNA evidence?  Using their own logic in regards to DNA proving or disproving things which many anti-Mormons regularly love to do, they tend to toss it out the window when faced with this idea.
This does not mean that Joseph Smith was not acting in certain ways towards these women, but thus far, no true evidence has come about to actually prove this.
However, what we do think is that Joseph Smith was sealed to these women, or married for eternity...This means that they were married not for this life, but for the next.  (LDS doctrine has it that this is something that can occur, in that one can be married either for time [this life] or the eternity [the next life] or for both [time and eternity] when they are married together.
In fact, most Anti-Mormon accounts grossly underestimate HOW MANY women were actually sealed to Joseph Smith.  Originally, when temple sealings were done, many sealings were done via marriage to Joseph Smith.  My thoughts are the ones that are still accounted by the Anti-Mormons are those that he was personally present for and are seen as personally being approved in his regard.  However, the number of woman he was sealed to via proxy or other methods number in the hundreds to the thousands.
This was seen as a mistake in how the ordinance was to be performed, and later on they tried to correct many of theses sealings.  The woman that had been previously sealed to Joseph Smith, it was approved that they instead also be sealed to their husbands that they had in this life.  This changed much of what we see in our records, and these woman are officially considered that they are sealed to their Husbands rather than Joseph Smith.  I believe that was the original intent when it was first occurring, but things had not completely been "ironed" out at that point.
Of course, most historians will say, it may not be one extreme or the other (the LDS take that I exhibited where these were only marriages for eternity, and the opposite slant that these were all marriages for this life), that instead, it is normally some middle ground.
What that middle ground is though, I don't know.  The problem is, there is almost no evidence for the opposing side in regards to real, true, and hard evidence to support what they say as of yet, but on the otherhand, when looking at the information we have regarding the marriages that Joseph Smith may have had, one must question when some accounts seem to indicate that the marriage may have been for time as well as eternity.
In that, as it's a hotspot of unknowns, and where people's feelings get highly contested at times, I'd say the best course of action typically if making media on it is to stay FAR FAR FAR away from the subject and focus on what the point or focus of the media actually is.
If we were to discuss something in our own world that isn't Mormon of a similar nature, I would say it would probably be in another topic that many try to shy away from, that where we can discuss many of our Founding Fathers as slave holders (George Washington amongst others).  It's a highly contested subject among people where many times a lot is said with very little evidence to support one opinion or the other.  Because it can be such a hotbed of contention, normally when talking about such individuals (like George Washington) the idea is to stay FAR FAR FAR away from it unless it is directly pertinent to the topic of the film/book/media.  It's not an attempt to hide it, but to avoid the contention that it can bring, many time because that contention can cause the actual message or topic trying to be conveyed to be lost and forgotten due to how involved they get with that one portion of that individuals life.

You do not need to have..  You are discussing things with your husband which is good.  Your husband is against the church which is typical.
If I were your husband (which I am not) and I was trying to show you that your interest was wrong/bad... I would be on the internet reading all the Anti Mormon stuff I could find... and then I would be spoon feeding it to you.
It means that your setup is unfortunate.
So just remember even if you are not willingly looking into any anti-mormon stuff does not mean that your Husband is not.  And if you regurgitate such here it, is a legitimate question for you, but founded in anti-materials that many of us very familiar with.
As for deception... that is a common theme but just remember that all these "hidden secrets" are by an large have been preserved and made available by the efforts of the LDS church.  Thus if the LDS church is indeed trying to "hide" things it is staggeringly incompetent about it

Jesus makes a very interesting point about there being many g-ds in John chapter 10 verses 31-36.  One may want to read the entire chapter to get the full context correct.  The point in question starts when Jesus claims to be “one” with the Father – meaning one with the Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven.  The Jews that were addressing Jesus knew exactly what he meant by saying he was “one” with the supreme Suzerain.  He was calling himself a g-d.  The Jews took up stones to kill Jesus for this blasphemy.  Considering the thought of a man becoming a g-d or like G-d (being "one" with G-d); Jesus did not say directly that a man cannot or can become a g-d.  Instead he pointed out that there are already many men that are g-ds in the kingdom of G-d (verse 34).  Most Christian theologians argue that the reference Jesus made were to judges in Israel - not actual g-ds.  This is because most modern theologians get this context wrong and for whatever reason misrepresent what Jesus was teaching.  In ancient kingdoms, it was believed that G-d gave rulers the power and right to judge – a power and right of G-d himself and a power that defines g-d according to ancient revelation.
Jesus was arguing a brilliant point – a point that many belonging to a false kingdom still get wrong or miss altogether.  As Jesus was explaining and teaching - there are and always has been; many g-ds in the kingdom of G-d.  As I said before – the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church on the earth today that seems to get this right in understanding Jesus correctly.  Not only was this argument over g-ds a primary reason Jesus was eventually crucified – but this argument remains today as one of the primary reasons the true teachings of Christ are rejected and his restored kingdom accused falsely.  It would seem - that there is nothing new under the sun (a quote from Ecclesiastes)
 
The Traveler

That's what sacrament meeting is for.

Take up knitting.

I don't know the answer, but I will bring up the question.  Is there a difference between being sealed to your parents and being born in the covenant.  If you are born to parents who are already sealed, you don't need to be sealed to them.  If they are sealed after you are born, you need to be sealed to them as well.  This can happen before baptism if you are under the age of 8.
So, I have heard that those born in the covenant are tied to the covenant of their parents, and even if they resign from the church, that covenant still stands because it was made before they were born.  Or perhaps it includes those who were sealed before the age of accountability.
Anyone have insight into this?

No, there is only one God the Father, only one Jesus Christ, and only one Holy Ghost.  We can be one with God, we can inherit all that God has, we can be "gods" but we will never be God the Father, we will never be Jesus Christ.   We pray to one entity, and only one entity.  God the Father, and we do so in the name of only one entity, and one entity only, Jesus Christ. 
There is no name under heaven for salvation than Jesus Christ. So, don't assume we worship the infinity of entities out there in the state of exaltation.  We don't.

No, there is only one God the Father, only one Jesus Christ, and only one Holy Ghost.  We can be one with God, we can inherit all that God has, we can be "gods" but we will never be God the Father, we will never be Jesus Christ.   We pray to one entity, and only one entity.  God the Father, and we do so in the name of only one entity, and one entity only, Jesus Christ. 
There is no name under heaven for salvation than Jesus Christ. So, don't assume we worship the infinity of entities out there in the state of exaltation.  We don't.

I always found it ironic that the "weird" Mormon beliefs aren't from the Book of Mormon or even the Doctrine and Covenants, but from the Bible (spirit prison, baptism for the dead, three degrees of glory, etc.)

Just doing a quick Google search, I found this Christian forum where they are discussing this very topic.  There are views on all sides, including the Catholic view.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/is-the-apostle-john-still-alive.7794940/
There are lots of various essays from non-LDS authors on the subject. It's not unique to Mormonism.
http://livingthequestion.org/did-jesus-tell-john-he-would-live-see-his-coming/
It's an interesting topic, really, and the author above has some interesting insight.  The only difference is we believe we have additional revelation, specifically the Book of Mormon which adds a little more pieces to the puzzle.  And Mormonism isn't tied to the conclusions of other churches, so even though the Catholics may emphatically claim that John died in 99 AD, that is not LDS doctrine and we don't have to accept that conclusion.  
But this brings up the need for prophetic leadership.  It's the greatest strength of the church, that we, as members are open to speculation, but accept clarity from God.  Again, it changes new information from discord to discovery.

When I think of the baptisms in the New Testament, they all seems almost on the spot, with very little doctrinal knowledge, just a burning in their heart and a desire to follow Christ.   One article of faith says "we believe the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are, first faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, second repentance, third baptism for the remission of sins, and fourth, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."  These are the first steps to conversion.  And faith and repentance I believe doesn't need countless hours of study, just a simple witness of truth.   If you believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, then everything else becomes discovery, and not discord.
 

I do want to make it clear that no one is baptized without knowledge of what is expected of them as a member.  You are asked to commit to attend church, tithe, obey the law of chastity, obey the word of wisdom, etc.  And you are expected to have a testimony of Jesus Christ and the restored Gospel (i.e. accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, the Book of Mormon, etc.).
No where in the church are those commitments changed.  The manifestation of them may change, with higher callings (i.e a bishop has a higher expectation to keep the commandments more than a teenager).  But the initial commitment and the commandments themselves are unchanged, although, I suppose they could warn you about callings. But even then, you can turn down any and all callings.
The missionaries simply don't have time to teach all the nuanced doctrines of the church.  They teach you what you need to gain a testimony and what you need to do to keep God's commandments.  There is a lesson on the Plan of Salvation which goes over this stuff generally, but not in the detail we have discussed here.  It's just too much to cover in a one hour lesson. 
And, although it's not a requirement to cover all of this before baptism, none of this is hidden from anyone.  All church publications and manuals are online from milk to meat. Here, for example, are the missionary discussions, in case you want a leg up on what they teach.
https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary?lang=eng

Just doing a quick Google search, I found this Christian forum where they are discussing this very topic.  There are views on all sides, including the Catholic view.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/is-the-apostle-john-still-alive.7794940/
There are lots of various essays from non-LDS authors on the subject. It's not unique to Mormonism.
http://livingthequestion.org/did-jesus-tell-john-he-would-live-see-his-coming/
It's an interesting topic, really, and the author above has some interesting insight.  The only difference is we believe we have additional revelation, specifically the Book of Mormon which adds a little more pieces to the puzzle.  And Mormonism isn't tied to the conclusions of other churches, so even though the Catholics may emphatically claim that John died in 99 AD, that is not LDS doctrine and we don't have to accept that conclusion.  
But this brings up the need for prophetic leadership.  It's the greatest strength of the church, that we, as members are open to speculation, but accept clarity from God.  Again, it changes new information from discord to discovery.

There is...  I am not sure if it is in this thread or other thread that I pointed out what becomes official for the LDS church.  That which the Prophet and 12 are untied on and present to the church.  We have that source.  We call it the Standard Works... aka the Bible, the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
They are the collection of LDS scriptures, they what the church repeatably asks the members and potential members to study and pray and learn from...  They are called the Standard Works because they are the standard by which any other idea, thought or claim to understanding of God's way is verified or rejected.
I assume you already accept the Bible as the Word of God, your next step is the verify the Book of Mormon using the process outlined in several places of scripture of reading it, pondering it and praying and asking God if it is of him.   
That is the next step... Trying to skip that step and trying to verify 200 years of talks that a mix of ideas without having faith and assurance of the foundation is doing meat before milk... it is like trying demanding to understand calculus before you have mastered basic addition and subtraction.  By asking and pointing you to the basics we are not "hiding" anything we are trying to help you build the foundation needed to properly understand the rest.
 

I still contend that this is a lifetime of study.  What you learn the first time you hear the parable of the good Samaritan will be different from what you learn on the 100th time.  Your understanding of the concept of exaltation will change with and the same as your understanding of that parable (and of every other truth you come to grasp).  There is precious little actually written about exaltation.  Perhaps the most important one is that eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the mind of man (or something along those lines) what that will be like.  But the human mind hates a vacuum and so we speculate and draw conclusions and make stuff up so we don't have to face an uncertain future - even though it's promised to be more glorious than we can imagine - how foolish we are to not simply trust God.
As we get older (or more experienced in gospel living), we start (hopefully) to recognize what is explicit and what is assumed, and start to be less sure of the assumed and more comfortable with both the explicit and the uncertainty of what's ahead, and (in my experience and observations) less certain of our own future exaltation.  When that happens, we stop worrying about whether we have an exact understanding of "how many Gods we believe in" or what it means to inherit what the Father has, and start worrying more about how well we are following and relying on our Savior.
And that may be why we tell investigators not to worry so much - the future is in the hands of God the Father, and therefore, we need not worry.  Understanding comes with experience, over a lifetime.  In our present, we should be following the Savior to the best of our ability.  And in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the testimony needed to start that, to covenant to do that, is quite simple (as has been stated by others above).

When I think of the baptisms in the New Testament, they all seems almost on the spot, with very little doctrinal knowledge, just a burning in their heart and a desire to follow Christ.   One article of faith says "we believe the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are, first faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, second repentance, third baptism for the remission of sins, and fourth, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."  These are the first steps to conversion.  And faith and repentance I believe doesn't need countless hours of study, just a simple witness of truth.   If you believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, then everything else becomes discovery, and not discord.
 

I always found it ironic that the "weird" Mormon beliefs aren't from the Book of Mormon or even the Doctrine and Covenants, but from the Bible (spirit prison, baptism for the dead, three degrees of glory, etc.)

I do want to make it clear that no one is baptized without knowledge of what is expected of them as a member.  You are asked to commit to attend church, tithe, obey the law of chastity, obey the word of wisdom, etc.  And you are expected to have a testimony of Jesus Christ and the restored Gospel (i.e. accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, the Book of Mormon, etc.).
No where in the church are those commitments changed.  The manifestation of them may change, with higher callings (i.e a bishop has a higher expectation to keep the commandments more than a teenager).  But the initial commitment and the commandments themselves are unchanged, although, I suppose they could warn you about callings. But even then, you can turn down any and all callings.
The missionaries simply don't have time to teach all the nuanced doctrines of the church.  They teach you what you need to gain a testimony and what you need to do to keep God's commandments.  There is a lesson on the Plan of Salvation which goes over this stuff generally, but not in the detail we have discussed here.  It's just too much to cover in a one hour lesson. 
And, although it's not a requirement to cover all of this before baptism, none of this is hidden from anyone.  All church publications and manuals are online from milk to meat. Here, for example, are the missionary discussions, in case you want a leg up on what they teach.
https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary?lang=eng

As a former Catholic, I learned my Catechism, not the Bible. So, there were a lot of times when the missionaries would tell me something, and in the back of my  mind, I'd think - y'all have got to be fooling - then I'd find out it was right from the Bible. This is one reason why I believe the Church is true - every time I doubted, the missionaries were able to point to the Bible and show me where a belief or practice came from. Cool.
Well, I've been asked to give a short talk on Christ's mercy and was looking up some relevant scripture. Earlier this evening I was reading a thread here about being cast into outer darkness. "Outer darkness" was another one of these phrases that I thought the LDS had made up. So, imagine my surprise when I read, "but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness." Matthew 8:5-13   Wait - 'Outer darkness' is in the Bible??? You mean Joseph Smith didn't make it up?  I love it when this happens to me. I've read the BOM a few times. Maybe for 2018 my goal should be to read the Bible. I might learn something.