I would say you didn't give me much to go on at all. Now that you link this post of yours I see what you're saying now. Previously it came off as an assumption to me. I personally don't care if you think I'm deliberately doing something or being obtuse. I simply didn't see much of anything here but an assertion.
Anyway, lets look at the verses you use to support your notion that a man cannot be a prophet if...
And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
You say the following: “D&C 132 gives specific parameters for when plural marriage is acceptable to the Lord:
*The consent of the previous wife must be sought
*The plural wives must be virgins
*The plural wives must be vowed to no one else
*A man's plural wives "are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth"
You continue:
“In practicing plural marriage, Joseph Smith:
*Frequently did not seek Emma's consent/hid his plural marriages from Emma
*On January 17, 1842, married Mary Elizabeth Rollins, who was several months pregnant (obviously not a virgin)
*Entered polyandrous marriages with the wives of other men
*Had no known children with his plural wives”
Yes in so doing you seem to have missed that the injunction does not pertain to Joseph Smith:
“Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.”
Either Joseph Smith was justified whether he transgressed here or not or he was not. The LORD says he was justified by doing the sacrifice which He required for his transgressions. If you take the outline of your interpretation as infallible as you have done, then you must also take the justification offered by the LORD as infallible. No one else is justified.
