MrShorty

@Vort I suspect he was just trying to be agreeable -- kind of like Tevye:
 
 

Does anyone have the least idea what this guy was trying to say? Because I certainly do not.

It’s hard for me to make sweeping generalizations about the practice (as opposed to the theory) of polygamy in any particular religious subculture (or, for that matter, about the prevailing practice of “serial extramarital monogamy” in our modern secularized culture).  
Certainly, any case of a person telling me God wants me to do anything is potentially problematic.  It becomes more so if the thing the person says God wants, happens to be particularly self-serving; even more so if the course of action is contrary to my own interests as a whole; and yet more so if I believe God actually wants something different but the person insists I should do things their way because they know the will of God better than I do.  
But suffice it to say, I don’t see the second, third, or fourth conditions as being met in most historical cases of pioneer-era LDS plural marriage.  Joseph Smith, and most other pioneer men of the era, knew full well that there were less-complicated means of attaining sexual release than marrying women and supporting multiple families.  Plural marriage was not necessarily a net negative to women of that era once one moves beyond emotional bonds and adds economic and other factors into the mix (that seems to be a one of the main propositions of the OP). And many of the wives of the LDS leadership, at least, attested that their suitors encouraged those women to seek their own revelation from God (and these women were no shrinking violets.  They included such veritable battle-axes as Eliza Snow, Zina Huntington, Martha Hughes, and Augusta Cobb).
I would agree that polygamy is something that is wrenchingly hard to do well, and spectacularly destructive when done poorly.  It also poses a challenge to the notion of “romantic love” that has been the ideal of western marriage for the past two centuries.  I know that at least five of the six first LDS presidents, experienced divorces or their extralegal equivalents (Taylor, I’m not sure about).  IIRC, Joseph F. Smith’s first marriage ultimately dissolved due to the same dynamic some here have expressed a fear of—his wife was sterile and, try as she might, couldn’t bear the reality that Smith was successfully siring children with other women.  I have two polygamous divorces in my own family tree.  I still remember stumbling in a local history of a “first wife” in pioneer American Fork who out of jealousy locked a younger wife out of the house one winter’s night, resulting in the younger wife literally freezing to death right there on her own doorstep.  Jacob’s and Abraham’s polygamy strikes me as at least as much a matter of making lemonade out of life’s lemons, as about being an attempt to fulfill some divine ideal ab initio. 
The more I look at scripture and at LDS history, the more it occurs to me that there is a difference between being a great person versus being a refined one—and that the majority of the people we lionize probably fell into the former, not the latter category.   I suspect it takes both greatness and refinement to make a polygamous household work well; and my suspicion is that while modern society may be improving in its refinement, much of its former greatness is slipping away.

I have to admit, my wife has severe rheumatoid arthritis and initially the idea of having another hand to help out with domestic duties is attractive to me.

But then my sister-in-law is temporarily staying with us and already there are conflicts over discipline of children and more (we have custody of two of her kids). There is more stress with her here than without. I think that's about as close to experiencing polygamy as one can get, and it's tough, and that's without having to deal with intimacy/jealousy/romantic love issues thrown in too.

I think that law must have been a much more difficult law to live than many of us realize.

I have a little sister who never asked where babies came from. So when she was about eight years old, Mom took her aside and explained sex to her. My baby sister was appalled. She swore she would never do something so nasty. Seeing as how she's married with two children, apparently her resolve wavered.
When we are immature, reality can seem harsh and even evil. As we grow up, we grow into reality, and what previously seemed awful can come to seem acceptable, even desirable.
If plural marriage is indeed a feature of eternity, as seems likely, then obviously it is a good thing. Railing against it only demonstrates our own immaturity. Now there is no shame in being immature. By definition, that's how we all start out. But by the same token, we should not cling stubbornly to our immaturity and use it as how we define ourselves.
It has long seemed to me that the best way for most people to approach the topic of plural marriage is not to approach it at all. Just leave it alone. Let it sit there, unmolested, while you go on your merry way. If and when the time comes that the topic needs to be dealt with, you can deal with it then. Until that time, learn what God has for you to learn and don't sweat the rest. And if people want to talk about plural marriage, let them. You don't need to participate. There are far too many wonderful things in life to take up your time and your thoughts without surrendering yourself to bashing your head against the concrete wall of plural marriage.

Love this comment.
A child, especially a young one, isn't in the position to judge the righteousness of their parent's lives.  And a child can indeed bond with many different adults --- mom, dad, grandparents, aunts/uncles, stepparents, foster/adopted parents, etc.  My husband grew up with three parental figures-- his mom, his dad (they were divorced) and his dad's long term girlfriend.  As a kid he didn't understand that his mom & dad were divorced because of abuse, nor that his dad and the longterm/cohabitating girlfriend weren't married and had major issues.  He just understood who was going to be there to hold him when he was upset, who cheered him on, and who would listen when he needed to talk-- in other words who showed him love.  Was the situation ideal with God's Plan?  Not remotely!!  But his parents sins didn't mean he didn't/doesn't love them. 

I never used to believe that.  My immature, ignorant brain just couldn't wrap my head around the notion that gay relationships could be considered real in any stretch of the word.  And children with two gay parent figures?  My brain only had images from Oliver Twist or Brave New World - I just couldn't even imagine.
Then I met some, personally knew some, and watched them.  I'm no longer ignorant.  Jane_Doe's statements above are spot on.   And if we're ever going to be effective in ministering to folks in that situation, we might as well deal with the realities of the situation.
Or, you know, you can stomp your foot and repeat your mantra of "they're not families and I don't care what the world says!".  Good for boundary maintenance, I suppose.  Lousy for actually loving thy neighbor as thyself. 

I think an important distinction needs to be made here between those we love, and those we are directly sealed/seal-able to in the Lord's eyes.  "Family" is a label that can applied to both definitions, but there may be different folks in each category.  
For example: my husband and his best friend have been close-buddies for decades.  This best friend was the Best Man at our wedding, he's "Uncle John" to my daughter, etc.  He is totally loved and family under that definition.  But he's not someone we're sealed directly too.  Though of course we are all siblings in Christ.
A different example: some parents are abusive to their kids.   This wrecks their relationship with the kid: there is no love there left, and sometimes no contact at all for the sake of safety.  This is still family in the fact that the sealing is there (definition #2), but not the love.  Of course the parent's sinful behavior also wrecks their relationship with God.  
 
Now timing this back to homosexual relationships: no, this is not a valid seal-able relationship.  It goes against God's will.  That's obvious.  But what should also be obvious is that these people do care for each other.  And especially for children raised in these households: both of these folks are parental figures, and the kid feels that love/devotion to them.  We should never forget that or how important a child's love is.  Yes, stand for Truth, but also too be sensitive, especially when working with minor children.  

Exactly.  I mostly worry about the left things.  Take my left hand, for example.  It's utterly inept, no coordination at all (except for steering the car).  And then there's my left brain - way more dominant than I'd like.  And both my left foot and my left eye are ridiculously skeptical.

I agree with what you have written, but you haven't followed this line of thinking out far enough. The point of plural marriage is not sex, nor is it babysitting. It's a social dynamic, perhaps comparable to having many children instead of just one. Are children jealous of their siblings? Well, yes. Do they think that Mom loves Suzie better? Probably. Are there all sorts of complications, personal issues, and heartbreaks involved in being one of several siblings? You bet.
Does it therefore follow that coming from a family of many children is categorically worse than coming from a single-child household? Many people would disagree with that statement, and many of those who disagree might argue exactly the opposite. (As do I.) For all of the obvious drawbacks of having siblings, the benefits can outweigh the disadvantages, even by many orders of magnitude. I am sooooooooooooo glad that I have brotherS and sisterS, and that I am not my parents' only child. Despite the ongoing problems and heartbreaks associated with siblings, I would never, ever trade my family growing up for one in which I would be the only child. I feel the same about my own children.
Now obviously, the marital dynamic is not the same as the parent-child dynamic. But in some cases, plural wives did in fact develop a camaraderie and love for their "sister wives". They were no more jealous of their husbands having an emotional (and physical) bond with the other wives than you would be jealous of your parents having a loving relationship with your brother or sister. You would want such a thing. This seems strange to us, but only because it's not something we are used to. It seems foreign because it is foreign. But I can imagine a society where plural marriage is accepted as normal and jealousy between a man's wives is not at all a given.
Sadly, I feel compelled to include the following disclaimer as an addendum: I am not advocating for plural marriage. Unless and until we are commanded, I think it is a forbidden and therefore evil path to tread. I am arguing that as a principle, plural marriage is not obviously or uniformly horrific.

It's a bit more complicated than that, however, from the child's perspective. A legally birthed or adopted dependent does constitute a family regardless of marriage. For example, a single mother, whatever the cause of that situation, is still "family" with her child -- particularly from the child's p.o.v. If a child is legally adopted by two gay people their parents are, indeed, their family. How else could it possibly be seen, even in the eyes of the church. And yet, such a situation, is not an eternal family. So, yes...it's complicated.
I think what we call such things is less important than what we do about it. The church policy is partially about home stability. The church is also firmly behind the long-term goal of each individuals eternal welfare. Our concern should be similar. We don't want children cast out on the street, starving, abused, etc., etc. We also have an over-arching goal to bring souls to Christ and to His ordinances.
"Family" is just a word. And, yes, words matter -- but if different people understand words differently, digging in and refusing to use the word in the way others use it isn't exactly productive. Of course capitulation and just using words in ways they have been hijacked is also unproductive. So it behooves us to clarify and preface each instance of said words with proper modifiers. I agree with the idea presented by @anatess2 that using the term "eternal" as a modifier when speaking of eternal families is useful.
I'm not debating the idea with you really. It galls me to refer to a gay "family" as a "family". But they are, legally, just that now. So... ????
Hijacking words is clearly one of Satan's tools in these latter days. It's quite difficult to find balance in communication.

Autocorrect is a Universalist.

This is why I eat my young.

I can say as someone who struggled to have babies, It would have drove me insane if dh had another wife having babies right and left.  I had a hard enough time dealing with it and feelings like a failure. Another woman having his babies, who have finished me off. 

Re: worrying about the right things -- probably not. At least, not at all times and in all places and in all things. I hope we sometimes worry about the right things, even if we do so imperfectly.
I, too, grew up with "today is the day of salvation, don't procrastinate the day of your repentance" kind of messages. And I mostly agree with those messages. A few weeks ago, as I was listening to Erwin Lutzer's radio program, he talked about how saving faith (thinking as an Evangelical here) is a gift from God with some suggestions that we don't control when, how, or if God chooses to grant us this gift. I know that this kind of "Calvinist" thinking can be a point of contention throughout Christianity and not just within Mormonism (sorry, still don't know what word to use here), but it seems to illustrate my own struggles and attempts to understand this. Are faith and testimony things that I draw to myself? Or are faith and testimony gifts that God grants solely according to His wisdom and discretion? Or, as with so many things, is the real truth somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, because I see evidences for both sides? As long as I can see the possibility that God may choose to withhold faith and testimony for reasons known only to Him, I find I cannot pronounce final judgement on anyone (other than myself, perhaps). "Today is the Day..." then becomes a reminder for myself that I need to be diligent in following the faith and testimony that God has given me, but not to project onto others.
All told, I find it an intriguing question, for which I don't think I have good answers, but I hold out hope and optimism that all still have the opportunity to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ of salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.

I was thinking specifically about what is effective, and how to show love while testifying.  Going up to a minor child and telling them their family isn't a real family, is one of the better ways to make sure they never want anything to do with the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  About as effective as an atheist at a restaurant, overhearing the table next to him is coming back from their mom's funeral, and he decides it's important to talk loudly about how corpses decompose.  Does the grieving table walk away happier that they know factually true things, or do they just figure atheists can be real jerks sometimes?
And again, I'm also thinking about how this is a publicly accessible page, easily found by any child who goes to google and types in some keywords like "LDS children with gay parents".  Wade figures his brusque factual bluntness is appropriate because it's an LDS board "populated predominately with members of the Church".  I disagree.  We're not an exclusive club that get together and talk amongst ourselves.  We're seated at tables in a stadium, complete with lights and microphones, and anyone who wants can sit in the seats and watch us on the big screen.  Including 16 yr old kids with gay parents and an LDS friend who invited him to church and seems nice.  You just hope that kid encounters the Elder Christopherson link, and maybe doesn't overhear Wade.

For a long time I've been voicing the opinion (till everyone's sick of hearing me) that a female Doctor Who makes as much sense as a male Wonder Woman. Now that he/she's arrived I'm a little more sanguine: Jodie Whittaker is certainly the sort of woman a transsexual Doctor Who might choose to be. (There's definitely something of Tom Baker about her!)
But there's something else that's bothering me. Who (excuse the pun) died on 22 November 1963? J.F. Kennedy you'll tell me, shot (as any fule kno) by aliens on the Grassy Knoll. Yes - but who else? Well Aldous Huxley - author of Brave New World died that same day. As did C.S. Lewis who invented the wardrobe.
And the very next day, on 23 November 1963, the very first episode of Doctor Who was broadcast. William Hartnell playing Doctor Who and Carole Ann Ford his granddaughter Susan. All three famous men missed being Whovians by 1 day!
This useless information is brought to you free of charge (and without guarantee) courtesy of the "The Best Doctor Who was Jon Pertwee (and Mary Tamm was way better (and sexier) Romana than Lala Ward) Society". 

I will agree with this. Some reject the Gospel out of laziness or stubbornness or willful self-deception (or other reasons that are not coming immediately to mind). Alma taught that the same spirit that "possesses" us in this life, persists with us into eternity (Alma 34:34), and I think this is a big part of what Alma is talking about. But I also see evidence that there are cases where a Christian is not given that testimony of the LDS Church for reasons known only to God (see previous discussion here:
I think my point of not judging is that I cannot know for sure why someone is not accepting the Church, and how much of their refusal is their own choice and how much is God's choice. As the previous discussion shows, there is room to debate whether God would withhold a testimony from someone or not. It seems to me that He might, so I choose not to judge others and to hold out hope that God will still choose to grant that testimony in the future, if at all possible.

If the advantages of polygamy are about getting free maids and babysitters...Can you imagine the advantages of polyandry? Heaven on earth, I have an endless list of things to fix at home.

Heh.  I really don't wonder the church felt it necessary to make it explicitly clear that we should just keep the heck away from children of same-sex households with such talk.  "Your family isn't a real family"?  Serioiusly?  
If you ever find yourself talking to one of these folks, instead of about them, may I suggest the approach Elder Holland uses:  Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting February 2008 - General Patterns and Specific Lives
 
(I'd also like to suggest the very real possibility that by posting stuff online, you already are talking to some folks in this situation.)
 

From the newsroom:

In the Bible it can be pointed out that there are MANY things that were done and even okayed (and had laws about them) by the House of Israel that we would find morally and ethically wrong in our society today.
I think one way to look at why this is, is because the Lord's ways are not our ways, and the Lord's thoughts are not our thoughts.  We are so influenced by our western society that many of us automatically assume that which is the morals of our western culture is good and that which does not agree with it is bad.  This can create difficulty in understanding why the Lord would command thing such as Joshua killing all the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan (or Saul learning about obedience because he didn't slay outright every living thing). 
There are many who cannot believe in the Bible, especially the Old Testament because of things like what you listed above.
Even the New Testament has things which we find offensive to our Western Societal Narrative.
I do not have all the answers and I don't necessarily have the answers to those who find these difficulties.  I think that acknowledging that these difficulties or problems people have exist is a good step.  Their problems about the differences between what we see in the Bible and the morality we find out society today is not going to automatically change, but seeing that they have these differences can help try to see the best path towards helping them find a way that they might believe in the Lord, even if they have a hard time accepting the Bible or all of what is said in the Bible itself (or at least how many interpret the Bible.).
That does not mean Western morality over rides or over rules the Lord and his commandments or his all powerful ability, but it may give one a starting point to try to reconciliate their feelings and Christianity.
Obviously, our religion is on a smaller scale, but those who have a testimony granted of the Spirit might have the advantage.  IF they have a solid testimony of the gospel, when they find challenging items which seem to go directly counter to their morals in the gospel, they strive to continue even when they may not understand exactly why themselves.
We see this with Abrahm who eventually became Abraham and with his wife.  We see this with Issac who faithfully followed his father, even to the mount of sacrifice.  We find this with David at times with his conflict with Saul.  We find this with Peter in his early days spent in the company of the Lord.  We find this with Joseph Smith as a young man who had seen an angel and told to visit a hill, even if he did not understand why he was to go.
I think this plays into Faith, which is a very important aspect of the gospel and one of the first principles that we try to follow.
However, I've gotten very OT with this, but it is an interesting thing when discussing differences in our culture, beliefs, customs, and morality between who and what we are today and what was that of the past.  It gets even more interesting when trying to adjust those principles and morality of the past in our current day civilization whether it is Christian, Muslim, or other ancient religions that we try to incorporate our faith in today.
Sometimes the variances in belief, morality, and faith are not so long ago as is with the case of the Priesthood and ordination among the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Slavery among Southern U.S Christians a century or two ago, or Buddhist practices in China and Asia a couple centuries ago.

@zil is alluding to the “penal substitution” paradigm—the idea that *someone* had to pay the price for all those sins we have committed, and that Jesus did so and, in effect, becomes our new master or owner while perfectly reconciling the principles of justice and mercy.  The paradigm is very popular in LDS thought, having been articulated in an influential sermon entitled “The Mediator” by the late LDS leader Boyd K. Packer.  (See the text at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/04/the-mediator?lang=eng).  
That said, penal substitution is not the only LDS approach to what the Atonement is, and why it was necessary; and to my mind—while it’s a great starting point—it is incomplete.  I think most Latter-day Saints would agree that don’t just exist to be “forgiven”; we exist to be changed.  There is some ineffable quality about who Jesus was, what He did and what He suffered, that inspires us to change and that somehow gives Him power to connect with us and perfect us in a way He otherwise could not have done.  

@Vort and @MormonGator
As much as it is human nature to rape and murder - it is also human nature to love and have compassion.  As much as I have traveled and talked to many peoples in many lands - It is my general understanding that the nature to rape and murder is actually much less prevalent than love and compassion.  In addition I am convinced that humans are an advanced intelligent species and that without a greater inclination towards love and compassion that the human race would not have survived.  
 
The Traveler