I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Here is the context of which Jesus (Yeshua) made the statement to the Saducees. It revolved around Levarite marriage found in the Torah and even before in Genesis. I am quoting from the following article:
Levirate Marriage
Blaine Robison, M.A.
Torah Requirement
Levirate marriage refers to
the duty of a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother in the event his brother had produced no male heir. The term "levirate" comes from the Latin
levir meaning "husband's brother" and translates the Hebrew word
yabam, which occurs only in the passage above and Genesis 38:8. Levirate marriage, called
yibbum in Judaism, is a custom whose origin lies in antiquity, long before God issued a regulation concerning the practice. God preferred that men marry women within their tribe, as illustrated in the specific ruling given for the daughters of Zelophehad (Num 36:6). The reason was simple. The land of Israel had been apportioned among the tribes and then within each tribe further apportioned to the clans. Marriage wasn't just about romance but maintaining the tribal name and the land associated with the name.
Ordinarily a man could not marry his brother's wife (divorced or widowed, Lev 18:16; 20:21), so the conditions necessitating the marriage only applied when the deceased brother had
ein ben ("no son," TLV), i.e., no male heir at all. The Hebrew word
ben, which occurs over 5,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, basically, but not exclusively, means "son" (BDB 119). When used as an expression in the plural,
benim may mean children or descendants generally. The LXX translates
ben in the Deuteronomy passage with
sperma (seed or child), which may indicate a child of either sex, and the Sadducees in the Besekh seem to take it in this sense (Mark 12:19) as does the first century Jewish historian, Josephus (
Antiquities of the Jews, IV,
8:23).
Some versions translate
ein ben with "childless" or "without children" (CJB, DRA, JPS, JUB, KJV, NJB, OJB) as if the Heb. word was
zera ("seed" or "descendant"). The entire context requires the interpreting
ein ben as lacking a male heir. Otherwise, what is the point of the first son born to the marriage of the widow and her brother-in-law being given the name of the deceased brother? In
yibbum the biological father becomes a surrogate for the first son, but every other child born to the union would be his.
The primary purpose of the yibbum law was to preserve the dead man's name in Israel and insure that assets belonging to him and the widow remained in the family to be passed on to the son. Caring for widows and assuring their security is a continual theme throughout the Bible. God insisted that the family shoulder the responsibility of its widows rather than burdening the community as is common in modern times.
The act of assuming the marriage responsibility for the deceased brother is a serious Torah requirement. If the brother-in-law refused to perform the duty of marrying the widow in order to produce an heir for his deceased brother, then the widowed sister-in-law had to perform the ceremony of
chalitza and publicly disgrace her brother-in-law by removing his shoe before the village elders and spitting in his face. From that moment on, he would be known throughout Israel as "the house of him who has his shoe loosed" (Deut 25:10; TWOT 1:359f). Failure to perform the duty did not result in any criminal kind of penalty or require atonement, but he would have to live with the social disgrace. The requirement of
yibbum was expected even if the surviving brother already had a wife, polygamy being an acceptable practice in the Torah. In addition, traditional Jewish interpretation also required the ceremony if the widow declined to marry the brother-in-law.
Teaching of Yeshua
"Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.' Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.'" (Matt 22:24-28)
The fact that certain Sadducees pose the hypothetical situation of seven brothers having married a widow after each of them died demonstrates that
yibbum was still practiced by the Jews in the first century. If Yeshua was opposed to the duty mandated by the Torah that he himself gave to Moses, he failed to take any action to overturn the law. It would have been strange for Yeshua to criticize the practice since, in the flesh, he directly descended from the unions of Judah and Tamar (Matt 1:3) and Ruth and Boaz (Matt 1:5). Instead the Lord's concern was to correct the basis for the Sadducee rejection of the resurrection, as well as to clarify the nature of resurrection in relation to marriage. We might assume that the silence of Yeshua on the application of
yibbum law affirmed its continued practice, but he had no legal authority to make such a decision.
Jesus did not validate eternal marriage. IN fact he said just the opposite. He said this:
Matt 22:29-30
Jesus answered and said unto them,
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
KJV
Jesus said there was no marriage in heaven but that people would be as angels of God. Not angels themselves, but AS the angels. Jesus answered the attempted trip-up story of seven brothers marrying the same woman saying there is no marriage in heaven or a giving in marriage. This could not be more clear.
There is no biblical scriptural foundation for eternal marriage between man and woman other than born-again believers (the church) and the Lamb of God (Jesus).
Joseph Smith was very wrong concocting this belief.
You may not believe polygamy is part of Mormonism, but you'd be wrong.