Well spoken👌 I remember Hinkley firmly speaking on marriage between one man and one woman on multiple occasions but was rejected back then too. Why are members so trapped on the polygamy hill? Seriously too? So many women have left the church due to the fact that they cannot tolerate the idea of open relationships even on the other side. I'm an active member, I love the gospel and I know there is great opposition from within and without. I'm just surprised there's no critical thinking on this matter from our members. It's like Brigham Young is the end-all of the church and that's it. No wonder God has to chastise us often. Great video.
Add this to the difference in writing styles between Joseph's legitimate revelations, which were of a flowery nature, and Brigham's demanding, commanding narcissism style.
Thank you Rob. You are a saint. Your work to reveal the truth is appreciated beyond your ability to fathom. I’m still a member ONLY because of the truth you have revealed. You will be vindicated. God is on your side.
Thank you, Rob. I rejoice that God is revealing truth and reality in the last days at such a fast pace. We need it to unshackle ourselves. The truth will set you free. Unfortunately, some prefer the shackles and blinders of false tradition.
My dad asked me..."Why would God call Joseph Smith to do such great things and then allow it to all fail?" I told him that he doesn't understand scripture very well as instant failure by man was the prominent theme throughout all books of scripture. The garden. Adams family. The fallen angels. Noah's reset. Moses and the Israelites. The twelve apostles. And so many others. All scripture stories start out so well yet turn to crap soon after. I told him that the underlying theme of the book of mormon is a heavy and dire waring of secret combinations. Satan doesn't wait to attack. He does so instantly. Like the garden. And then with Cain. And yet the mormon sleeper believes that Satan didn't attack and corrupt the early church? People don't understand their very own doctrine, which points to a church in apostacy. It shatters their weak paradigm, which holds their fragile testimonies within. Because their testimonies aren't truly rooted in Christ. They are rooted in the worship of men called the top 15.
Sadly, I have seen that almost nothing will convince most members. No quote or scripture or evidence. I feel like I am screaming at the top of my lungs however it seems to have almost no effect. I then am labeled as the extremist and separated from the group. We really do need God to correct things. That is the only way.
wait till you come from a traditional old line protestant background and tell them they dont understand Daniel, Revalations, or the beast/Daniel's statue and that all the Protestant forefathers knew and were inspired who the antichrist is. Wait until you tell them Smith agreed with the Protestant forefathers and felt many of them were inspired and saw angels etc. Smith never said there was a great apostasy, it was a falling away like it says in the Bible. The LDS, when in class, are the only ones that know anything but it has to come from current prophets or it is null. total garbage .
@@TheOGProtestantMormon LDS do believe in a "great apostasy". However the truth is we are always in an apostasy. The LDS believe they have a corner market on the truth, however they are as wrong as everyone else.
You aren’t too separated. The unfortunate part though is that if you don’t at least make your opinion known, there will be those that will leave the church altogether because they are jaded by untruths being heralded as gospel doctrine. It’s a tough situation
It's hard for anyone to give up their beliefs. Just like lds missionaries it is all about planting seeds and those who seek the truth will eventually come around. Keep sharing the truth.
Love it! I'm a direct descendent of Joseph C Kingsbury. I hope to contribute to correcting the sins of my fathers. On the other side of things, I know many people who won't even consider alternate origins of polygamy because their ancestors lived it. 🤦♂
It is wierd isn’t it? We all have bad/dishonest people in our past. Some of the ones I know of were part of a castle rustling gang that ended up in prison. If I were to go back further I’d find some other not so favorable characters. I don’t judge myself based on my ancestors. Just like I don’t just anyone else based on theirs.
Excellent forensic analysis. I believe your work along with the work of many others who are trying to bring truth to light regarding the corrupt deeds of BY and other early church leaders to justify their own desire to practice polygamy cannot continue to be ignored and unanswered by present church leaders, and will ultimately result in admission that those corrupt deeds are indefensible. The implications of what that might cause are unfathomable, but continuing to believe in doctrines based on falsehoods and lies is equally unfathomable. From our hymn “Oh Say, What is Truth?” (verse 4) Tho the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst, Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst, Eternal, unchanged evermore.
Amen. It's good to have some evidence to support the inauthenticity of section 132, but It's pretty clear when you just read it that it's completely nonsensical. 😆
I am seeing more and more that the Church was made in the Image of Brigham Young. Brigham went back and did a lot of revisionism in church history. It is very interesting How convenient it is to declare a law, and then exempt yourself from that made up law. Do as I say not as I do kind of thing. Blessings are predicated upon obedience to good laws, curses to obedience of bad ones. The practice of collecting wives, and this made up law of Sarah, really meant that women had to grant permission else be cursed for not doing so. Thanks again for your insights.
Thank you, Rob!! It seems like singing to the choir, but every bit of evidence is such a blessing and helps those of us who know these truths to not feel alone in this knowledge.
I’ve never been LDS. But I took several classes in the 1970’s and at that time I was told polygamy was started by Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was only married to Emma. Has the Mormon church changed their position on Smith and polygamy? So confused as an outsider.
As an LDS, I learned as a kid that it was Brigham, and only for a specific time and purpose. When I was a teen (in the 90’s), President Hinckley denounced polygamy as a doctrine. I’m not sure when the church changed its stance, but it has. Maybe the Joseph Smith Papers being published had something to do with that? Although section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants was attributed to Joseph Smith by Brigham Young, Brigham Young being the one who published it, and it’s been in the Doctrine and Covenants since then, so I’m confused, too. I think we were just kind of ignoring it for a while.
Excellent work!! This is the conclusion I came to as well without the actual written evidence. Your analysis of the document is an excellent evidence for what I suspected. SarIah needed a surrogate mother to get herself a baby. It was HER idea to have a baby by Hagar. Hagar and Abram went along with it NOT because God commanded it but because SARIAH commanded it! "Dot needed something to cuddle" You'll only get that movie quote if you are a Raising Arizona fan. The trouble with SARIAH'S plan is that it BACKFIRED! Had she been patient and waited on the Lord it would have avoided a whole heck of a lot of grief. God was not involved with Abram's polygamy. Neither was God involved with Jacob's polygamy or David's or Solomon's. Plurality of wives and concubines was a cultural lifestyle choice that God does not approve of. However He will utilize any means to get His spirit children a body. Once they are born however it is the parents of those children who become accountable as to how each child of God is raised. Thus idol worshippers and those who lived outside of the covenant became abominable to the Lord. This is why it grieved the Lord to have His children born in sorry situations. How they are raised, the culture in which they are taught, including all abominable practices, INCLUDING plurality of wives and concubines will bring destruction and apostasy on a people. Jacob 2 & 3. Marrying outside of the covenant and or apostasy from the covenant will create circumstances that will affect their life choices and draw them away from the covenant path leading to God. Plural marriage was NEVER a commandment by God. Only a seemingly mortal good idea at the time that was come up with by mere mortals. The children that are products of those marriages are NOT a mistake though. They are children of a loving God who sent His son to redeem them from Hell. In His tender mercy, these children born under indigent circumstances, are compensated by God throughout their lives if they redirect their life course away from abominable practices and onto the covenant path.
If I saw that guy ( kings berry) walking down the street, I would walk the other side; what an absolute creepy guy! The story that you relayed at the end was delightful and so encouraging to know that there were still some “wise virgins “ scattered in this tattered history that could see through the false doctrine. IMO: polygamy was just human trafficking rebranded. Many young girls were purposely kept in the dark, even though they became a young bride in England , they didn’t know that there were more where where they were headed. Marriage requires membership in these households. John Taylor deceitfully preached in France against the evils of polygamy and that it was never practiced, because of the outrage of the people. He employed a French woman who could have pamphlets made in French explaining this to the women. When she travel to the states with him and these other women to learn how she had been so deceitful, but deceived herself, she returned back to Europe. I believe she penned her remorse in a publication. Point being, between the blood atonement in Utah, and women being taken to such a desolate isolated environment. It took great strength and courage for women to speak out like this. The story was retold in Anne Eliza Young’s autobiography ‘19th wife’. Thank you for all that you do!🙏❤️🇺🇸
It seems Joseph taught the doctrine of every individual is responsible for their salvation and that the church provides the keys and authority. Brigham seems to have hammered into the saints an easier doctrine of listen to whatever we say and you'll be good! This mindset seems to still exist today. The church has corrected a lot of the mess Brigham made, but we still have further to go.
Thank you for all your research and for sharing it. Do you have any information concerning the keys of authority that Joseph Smith held upon his death. Who holds the keys today.
I've been reading the journal of William Clayton lately. How would you go about addressing Clayton's claims that Joseph was involved in polygamy? He clearly implicates Joseph many times, but he is also a source of a lot of useful accurate information. I think there is truth to what you are saying, but the scope of the conspiracy to implicate Joseph in polygamy is staggering. It's painful to wrap one's mind around, from an emotional, but also intellectual point of view.
Please watch episode 85 of Michelle Stone’s “132 Problems” RUclips channel, proving that William Clayton’s journals were NOT contemporaneous. They were fabricated after Joseph’s death, to fit Brigham Young’s desired narrative (the “new order of things”, in other words the revised & fabricated history attempting to pin the origins of polygamy on Joseph Smith).
Great analysis. Looks like 132 went through multiple iterations to fit latest practice. Jacob 2 and Jst correctly condemns pologamy. My view is that Joseph was very much like David of OLD. He went off stream in June or July of 1836 when the saints ran him out of town because of his Affair with Fanny and Emma’s justified blow up. Polygamy, patriarchy, presiding, and seniority are all primarily a result of Joseph’s adultery. Brigham and others amplified polygamy and enhanced patriarchy but Joseph was the source. There is evidence that he regretted and may have tried to repent but he was responsible. I view him as a great prophet Who brought us the restoration. The 12 despite error still hold the keys and someday will stop transferring them to the ONE.
Hahaha. He is my kids 4th great grandfather. Gladly, not from my side as I have no polygamist ancestors whatsoever. My husband is trying to expose Kingsbury for his sins & lies. We know a bit about the man. Unfortunately there are descendants of Brigham Young who refuse to see their ancestor's folly. They tend to pride themselves on this heritage. We on the other hand want truth. We gave a book to a couple in our ward, Joseph Smith Revealed by Whitney Horning. They are descendants of Brigham and extremely proud of it and would not accept the truth that he could do any wrong or was not a real prophet. They returned the book to us. Truth is truth no matter who it incriminates. Joseph and Hyrum said those preaching polygamy should be shunned as the demons of hell regardless of their title.
Did you delete my comment about how to prove whether or not these handwriting samples match with Kingsbury, or did RUclips have a glitch? Or perhaps you hid my comments? Don’t want to assume anything. Just trying to figure out what happened to my truthful (tho perhaps inconvenient) comments on this video.
Your research of the topic is excellent. IMO the polygamy argument against Joseph is the weakest. I do however believe many other arguments show JS was a power seeking and false leader. The use of seer stones, the falsified revelations of priesthood and the restoration of a non existent Christian church from the time of a Jewish Jesus solidifies that the Mormon church is merely another form of man made religions.
Rob, a handwriting and document analyst you are not. The handwriting is Kingsbury’s throughout the 8 pages. It’s obvious. Just look at the formation of various capital letters and the distinct way he forms his small “v” and “w”. You try to make it appear that “A” in the first part is a different style than in the last section, but the last section has both styles. (Changing styles is not unique to Kingsbury. Willard Richards was a good one for doing that.) The last part uses “&” instead of “and,” that is, for the majority of the time. Once “And” is written over “&” in the style of the first part. There is a change in style of writing and a change in ink, probably due to the ink in the first part having more iron that oxidized over time. We might speculate why this occurs, but it doesn’t mean it’s a fake revelation. It might mean the situation was more complex than Kingsbury remembered or wanted to share. If I were to speculate, I would suggest the law of Sarai part was added after Emma rejected the revelation. JS often added to his own revelations. Also, the change from destroy to distroy in Verse 54 could indicate that someone began reading Clayton’s original to speed the copying. Another link between the first and second part is this misspelling.
Dan, what is your best understanding of when the Kingsbury copy was made? I’ve heard you say before that the last part could be different because Hyrum was urging him to hurry so that he could take it to Emma. I’ve also heard others say that the copy was made a day or two later. Related to that, is when did Emma burn it? Also, who do you believe took the revelation to Emma? Clayton contradicts himself but in his entry from that day, he’s clear that Joseph and Hyrum took it to Emma.
@@Commenter2121 It's hard to know who took the revelation to Emma. Normally, we favor the earliest account, but it's no guarantee. I think the revelation was written before Kingsbury left Nauvoo, I think in August. I have suggested the last part may have been read to him instead of visually copying as a way to explain differences in spelling. However, the spelling might not mean anything. The last 11 verses are written much neater. I have also suggested that they were added after Emma burned the original. They contain an anti-polyandry passage, which I interpret as JS repenting of those marriages, the Law of Sarah (getting the first wife's permission), and a condemnation of Emma if she refuses to comply. The subsequent statements of Clayton and Kingsbury I regard as faulty memory and overstating their testimonies.
@@danvogel6802 It just seems that Clayton’s contradiction reveals that there is a lot more to this than the church narrative suggests. If his July 12 1843 journal entry is truly from that day or within a few days, he would not mistakingly but clearly say that Joseph and Hyrum took the revelation and presented it to Emma. The church uses the more detailed account from 1874 with all the detail of only Hyrum taking it and getting reamed by Emma. Those are interesting theories on parts being added after meeting with Emma. Verses 51-66 are just so awful. Are you aware of accounts that say Emma burned it right at the time that it was presented to her? Or is the consensus that Joseph let her burn it later? I know there are accounts of that too.
@@Commenter2121 I haven't a firm opinion about the details, but possibly Clayton is conflating two events in 1874. Another possibility is that the phrase in the journal that that JS and Hyrum presented and read it to Emma is already a conflation of two events. It may have happened as Clayton described in 1874, but later that day JS approached Emma with the revelation and also failed.
Listen your work in this are is at the forefront. I really appreciate it. It is my opinion JS taught and was investigating the place of polygamy in religion, culture and history (it has a place) but that leadership was excited to add this new concept to the mix for their own motives. They also spiced up the history to support their version and compulsion of others. This does not invalidate polygamy entirely but actually does show how a misused principal can halt the work of God.
What place DOES it have? What about polyandry? Sarai had two husbands… Pharoah and Abraham. Why aren’t women able to be sealed to more than one husband? Jacob 2:30 says that If the Lord will curse those who practice polygamy, then they need to change their ways and raise up a righteous branch unto him. Otherwise, just stop practicing polygamy in the first place. It doesn’t say, “although I’ve been talking about polygamy being worse than anything including pride and whatever the Lamanites were doing, I think it’s GOOD to break the hearts of your wives and children and to abuse them through polygamy ONLY if I want a lot of babies to be born.” Which is what the current church narrative is.
@@RBD582 first logical fallacy, that polygamy is for men. You need to be able to critically think of what situation would women request polygamy. If you can't think of a hypothetical righteous intent in regard to this you may not have the tools to look into this issue in a logical manner.
The issue is that Kingsbury formally claimed three separate times that he alone copied the entire document. I cover Kingsbury’s claims here ruclips.net/video/HheHqg4c3HQ/видео.html which you can read in summarized form at one hour, nine minutes and 40 seconds into the video. It’s a question of Kingsbury’s credibility.
Thank you so much! I am so happy that I found a person on this site who is not deceived!! You would think that do many saints would not be deceived by this evil apostate who criticizes the church and /or it's leaders on every video he puts out!!!
Anyone who doesn't believe that Joseph Smith started polygamy needs to read these three documents: The Nauvoo Expositor Buckeye's Lamentation For Want Of More Wives A Narrative of the Adventures and Experience of Joseph H. Jackson in Nauvoo All three documents are on the internet, and each can be read in less than half an hour. All three documents were published during Joseph Smith's lifetime. Anyone who reads these three documents and still thinks that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy needs to have their head examined.
Well spoken👌
I remember Hinkley firmly speaking on marriage between one man and one woman on multiple occasions but was rejected back then too.
Why are members so trapped on the polygamy hill?
Seriously too? So many women have left the church due to the fact that they cannot tolerate the idea of open relationships even on the other side.
I'm an active member, I love the gospel and I know there is great opposition from within and without. I'm just surprised there's no critical thinking on this matter from our members. It's like Brigham Young is the end-all of the church and that's it.
No wonder God has to chastise us often.
Great video.
Add this to the difference in writing styles between Joseph's legitimate revelations, which were of a flowery nature, and Brigham's demanding, commanding narcissism style.
So much analysis. So much damning evidence. Keep up the great work you are doing and strengthening the argument against the "damnable practice."
Thank you Rob. You are a saint. Your work to reveal the truth is appreciated beyond your ability to fathom. I’m still a member ONLY because of the truth you have revealed. You will be vindicated. God is on your side.
Thank you, Rob. I rejoice that God is revealing truth and reality in the last days at such a fast pace. We need it to unshackle ourselves. The truth will set you free. Unfortunately, some prefer the shackles and blinders of false tradition.
My dad asked me..."Why would God call Joseph Smith to do such great things and then allow it to all fail?" I told him that he doesn't understand scripture very well as instant failure by man was the prominent theme throughout all books of scripture. The garden. Adams family. The fallen angels. Noah's reset. Moses and the Israelites. The twelve apostles. And so many others. All scripture stories start out so well yet turn to crap soon after. I told him that the underlying theme of the book of mormon is a heavy and dire waring of secret combinations. Satan doesn't wait to attack. He does so instantly. Like the garden. And then with Cain. And yet the mormon sleeper believes that Satan didn't attack and corrupt the early church? People don't understand their very own doctrine, which points to a church in apostacy. It shatters their weak paradigm, which holds their fragile testimonies within. Because their testimonies aren't truly rooted in Christ. They are rooted in the worship of men called the top 15.
Sadly, I have seen that almost nothing will convince most members. No quote or scripture or evidence. I feel like I am screaming at the top of my lungs however it seems to have almost no effect. I then am labeled as the extremist and separated from the group.
We really do need God to correct things. That is the only way.
Exactly 💯
wait till you come from a traditional old line protestant background and tell them they dont understand Daniel, Revalations, or the beast/Daniel's statue and that all the Protestant forefathers knew and were inspired who the antichrist is. Wait until you tell them Smith agreed with the Protestant forefathers and felt many of them were inspired and saw angels etc. Smith never said there was a great apostasy, it was a falling away like it says in the Bible. The LDS, when in class, are the only ones that know anything but it has to come from current prophets or it is null. total garbage .
@@TheOGProtestantMormon LDS do believe in a "great apostasy". However the truth is we are always in an apostasy. The LDS believe they have a corner market on the truth, however they are as wrong as everyone else.
You aren’t too separated. The unfortunate part though is that if you don’t at least make your opinion known, there will be those that will leave the church altogether because they are jaded by untruths being heralded as gospel doctrine.
It’s a tough situation
It's hard for anyone to give up their beliefs. Just like lds missionaries it is all about planting seeds and those who seek the truth will eventually come around. Keep sharing the truth.
Keep it coming. Truth will prevail
The truth is coming out. Praise God. Thank you for your persistent research. 🙏
Love it! I'm a direct descendent of Joseph C Kingsbury. I hope to contribute to correcting the sins of my fathers.
On the other side of things, I know many people who won't even consider alternate origins of polygamy because their ancestors lived it. 🤦♂
I actually got verbally attacked by one woman.
It is wierd isn’t it? We all have bad/dishonest people in our past. Some of the ones I know of were part of a castle rustling gang that ended up in prison. If I were to go back further I’d find some other not so favorable characters.
I don’t judge myself based on my ancestors. Just like I don’t just anyone else based on theirs.
Thank you Rob. Please keep up the research.
Amen, the spirit has always told me that Joseph had only one wife.
Love the story at the end!
Thank you, Rob. Your work is brilliant. 💯
Excellent forensic analysis. I believe your work along with the work of many others who are trying to bring truth to light regarding the corrupt deeds of BY and other early church leaders to justify their own desire to practice polygamy cannot continue to be ignored and unanswered by present church leaders, and will ultimately result in admission that those corrupt deeds are indefensible. The implications of what that might cause are unfathomable, but continuing to believe in doctrines based on falsehoods and lies is equally unfathomable.
From our hymn “Oh Say, What is Truth?” (verse 4)
Tho the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal, unchanged evermore.
Amen. It's good to have some evidence to support the inauthenticity of section 132, but It's pretty clear when you just read it that it's completely nonsensical. 😆
It is very rambling and hateful.
I am seeing more and more that the Church was made in the Image of Brigham Young. Brigham went back and did a lot of revisionism in church history. It is very interesting How convenient it is to declare a law, and then exempt yourself from that made up law. Do as I say not as I do kind of thing. Blessings are predicated upon obedience to good laws, curses to obedience of bad ones. The practice of collecting wives, and this made up law of Sarah, really meant that women had to grant permission else be cursed for not doing so. Thanks again for your insights.
I will be a witness at your stint before the Judgement Bar testifying in your favor.
Thank you, Rob!! It seems like singing to the choir, but every bit of evidence is such a blessing and helps those of us who know these truths to not feel alone in this knowledge.
It's clear on a spiritual level that 132 is not of God, but it's nice to have other types of evidence to substantiate that fact.
Keep them coming Rob, excellent !!
For years I've been very disturbed by the obvious contradiction between D&C 132 and Jacob 7!
I'm delighted to learn a little more, thank you!👍
Jacob 2?
@@lisa143justin Yes, I made a mix-up 😁👍
I’ve never been LDS. But I took several classes in the 1970’s and at that time I was told polygamy was started by Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was only married to Emma. Has the Mormon church changed their position on Smith and polygamy? So confused as an outsider.
As an LDS, I learned as a kid that it was Brigham, and only for a specific time and purpose. When I was a teen (in the 90’s), President Hinckley denounced polygamy as a doctrine. I’m not sure when the church changed its stance, but it has. Maybe the Joseph Smith Papers being published had something to do with that? Although section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants was attributed to Joseph Smith by Brigham Young, Brigham Young being the one who published it, and it’s been in the Doctrine and Covenants since then, so I’m confused, too. I think we were just kind of ignoring it for a while.
Well done!
Excellent work!! This is the conclusion I came to as well without the actual written evidence. Your analysis of the document is an excellent evidence for what I suspected.
SarIah needed a surrogate mother to get herself a baby. It was HER idea to have a baby by Hagar. Hagar and Abram went along with it NOT because God commanded it but because SARIAH commanded it! "Dot needed something to cuddle" You'll only get that movie quote if you are a Raising Arizona fan.
The trouble with SARIAH'S plan is that it BACKFIRED! Had she been patient and waited on the Lord it would have avoided a whole heck of a lot of grief. God was not involved with Abram's polygamy.
Neither was God involved with Jacob's polygamy or David's or Solomon's. Plurality of wives and concubines was a cultural lifestyle choice that God does not approve of. However He will utilize any means to get His spirit children a body. Once they are born however it is the parents of those children who become accountable as to how each child of God is raised. Thus idol worshippers and those who lived outside of the covenant became abominable to the Lord. This is why it grieved the Lord to have His children born in sorry situations. How they are raised, the culture in which they are taught, including all abominable practices, INCLUDING plurality of wives and concubines will bring destruction and apostasy on a people. Jacob 2 & 3.
Marrying outside of the covenant and or apostasy from the covenant will create circumstances that will affect their life choices and draw them away from the covenant path leading to God.
Plural marriage was NEVER a commandment by God. Only a seemingly mortal good idea at the time that was come up with by mere mortals.
The children that are products of those marriages are NOT a mistake though. They are children of a loving God who sent His son to redeem them from Hell. In His tender mercy, these children born under indigent circumstances, are compensated by God throughout their lives if they redirect their life course away from abominable practices and onto the covenant path.
If I saw that guy ( kings berry) walking down the street, I would walk the other side; what an absolute creepy guy! The story that you relayed at the end was delightful and so encouraging to know that there were still some “wise virgins “ scattered in this tattered history that could see through the false doctrine.
IMO: polygamy was just human trafficking rebranded. Many young girls were purposely kept in the dark, even though they became a young bride in England , they didn’t know that there were more where where they were headed. Marriage requires membership in these households. John Taylor deceitfully preached in France against the evils of polygamy and that it was never practiced, because of the outrage of the people.
He employed a French woman who could have pamphlets made in French explaining this to the women. When she travel to the states with him and these other women to learn how she had been so deceitful, but deceived herself, she returned back to Europe. I believe she penned her remorse in a publication.
Point being, between the blood atonement in Utah, and women being taken to such a desolate isolated environment. It took great strength and courage for women to speak out like this. The story was retold in Anne Eliza Young’s autobiography ‘19th wife’. Thank you for all that you do!🙏❤️🇺🇸
Brilliant!
66 verses.
Interesting number. It's the sort of number one might expect from the sort of people who would write this kind of 'revelation'.
1+3+2=6 66
It IS interesting isn't it. The signature of the author of it right in plain sight.
Good catch. They love to do that sort of thing.
@@littleredhen3218
Fantastic discovery!
From a handwriting and grammatical view it's obvious the document came from diffrent sources.
The Church should be 170 million not 17 million. The Brighamite tares are still holding back the growth of the church.
Can’t wait to see what the pathetic rebuttal to this is…
They sure do try, don't they? Grasping at straws...If anything it is entertaining. 😅
Absolutely fantastic! Thank you for all your dedication and hard work!!
Love the story at the end, especially. Well done, Rob.
Your research is essential and priceless. Thanks so much!
Haha! That story at the end!👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
It seems Joseph taught the doctrine of every individual is responsible for their salvation and that the church provides the keys and authority. Brigham seems to have hammered into the saints an easier doctrine of listen to whatever we say and you'll be good! This mindset seems to still exist today. The church has corrected a lot of the mess Brigham made, but we still have further to go.
Wonderful!
"He remained monogamous." 😂😂 I can't wait to give that woman a big high five in the next life! Lol
Thank you for all your research and for sharing it.
Do you have any information concerning the keys of authority that Joseph Smith held upon his death. Who holds the keys today.
Great title!!
Rob, are you still a member? I saw some spicy Reddit threads saying you were excommunicated.
Great work, BTW.
A handwriting expert must confirm the hypothesis of two different writers. Then, it becomes a search for who wrote the last part.
I've been reading the journal of William Clayton lately. How would you go about addressing Clayton's claims that Joseph was involved in polygamy? He clearly implicates Joseph many times, but he is also a source of a lot of useful accurate information. I think there is truth to what you are saying, but the scope of the conspiracy to implicate Joseph in polygamy is staggering. It's painful to wrap one's mind around, from an emotional, but also intellectual point of view.
Please watch episode 85 of Michelle Stone’s “132 Problems” RUclips channel, proving that William Clayton’s journals were NOT contemporaneous. They were fabricated after Joseph’s death, to fit Brigham Young’s desired narrative (the “new order of things”, in other words the revised & fabricated history attempting to pin the origins of polygamy on Joseph Smith).
Great work, Rob! This is sooo important! 👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼
😂the story at the end.
I'm obsessed with LDS history even though it's clearly apparent they were all just crazy bastards, including brother Joseph. LOL
So I wonder if the handwriting of the black ink portion is Kingsbury's or someone else's.
Thank you. I pray for the servant to come and bail us out of this mess. I think I'm ready. I hope I will be.
Great analysis. Looks like 132 went through multiple iterations to fit latest practice. Jacob 2 and Jst correctly condemns pologamy.
My view is that Joseph was very much like David of OLD.
He went off stream in June or July of 1836 when the
saints ran him out of town because of his Affair with Fanny and Emma’s justified blow up.
Polygamy, patriarchy, presiding, and seniority are all primarily a result of Joseph’s adultery.
Brigham and others amplified polygamy and enhanced patriarchy but Joseph was the source. There is evidence that he regretted and may have tried to repent but he was responsible.
I view him as a great prophet Who brought us the restoration. The 12 despite error still hold the keys and someday will stop transferring them to the ONE.
He looks creepy.
Hahaha. He is my kids 4th great grandfather. Gladly, not from my side as I have no polygamist ancestors whatsoever. My husband is trying to expose Kingsbury for his sins & lies. We know a bit about the man. Unfortunately there are descendants of Brigham Young who refuse to see their ancestor's folly. They tend to pride themselves on this heritage. We on the other hand want truth. We gave a book to a couple in our ward, Joseph Smith Revealed by Whitney Horning. They are descendants of Brigham and extremely proud of it and would not accept the truth that he could do any wrong or was not a real prophet. They returned the book to us. Truth is truth no matter who it incriminates. Joseph and Hyrum said those preaching polygamy should be shunned as the demons of hell regardless of their title.
Well... Shoot!
Did you delete my comment about how to prove whether or not these handwriting samples match with Kingsbury, or did RUclips have a glitch?
Or perhaps you hid my comments? Don’t want to assume anything. Just trying to figure out what happened to my truthful (tho perhaps inconvenient) comments on this video.
Your research of the topic is excellent. IMO the polygamy argument against Joseph is the weakest. I do however believe many other arguments show JS was a power seeking and false leader. The use of seer stones, the falsified revelations of priesthood and the restoration of a non existent Christian church from the time of a Jewish Jesus solidifies that the Mormon church is merely another form of man made religions.
Is it possible the “and” changed because they knew they would run out of paper so tried to fit it on the last page?
Rob, a handwriting and document analyst you are not. The handwriting is Kingsbury’s throughout the 8 pages. It’s obvious. Just look at the formation of various capital letters and the distinct way he forms his small “v” and “w”. You try to make it appear that “A” in the first part is a different style than in the last section, but the last section has both styles. (Changing styles is not unique to Kingsbury. Willard Richards was a good one for doing that.) The last part uses “&” instead of “and,” that is, for the majority of the time. Once “And” is written over “&” in the style of the first part.
There is a change in style of writing and a change in ink, probably due to the ink in the first part having more iron that oxidized over time. We might speculate why this occurs, but it doesn’t mean it’s a fake revelation. It might mean the situation was more complex than Kingsbury remembered or wanted to share. If I were to speculate, I would suggest the law of Sarai part was added after Emma rejected the revelation. JS often added to his own revelations. Also, the change from destroy to distroy in Verse 54 could indicate that someone began reading Clayton’s original to speed the copying. Another link between the first and second part is this misspelling.
Dan, what is your best understanding of when the Kingsbury copy was made? I’ve heard you say before that the last part could be different because Hyrum was urging him to hurry so that he could take it to Emma. I’ve also heard others say that the copy was made a day or two later. Related to that, is when did Emma burn it?
Also, who do you believe took the revelation to Emma? Clayton contradicts himself but in his entry from that day, he’s clear that Joseph and Hyrum took it to Emma.
@@Commenter2121 It's hard to know who took the revelation to Emma. Normally, we favor the earliest account, but it's no guarantee. I think the revelation was written before Kingsbury left Nauvoo, I think in August. I have suggested the last part may have been read to him instead of visually copying as a way to explain differences in spelling. However, the spelling might not mean anything. The last 11 verses are written much neater. I have also suggested that they were added after Emma burned the original. They contain an anti-polyandry passage, which I interpret as JS repenting of those marriages, the Law of Sarah (getting the first wife's permission), and a condemnation of Emma if she refuses to comply. The subsequent statements of Clayton and Kingsbury I regard as faulty memory and overstating their testimonies.
@@danvogel6802 It just seems that Clayton’s contradiction reveals that there is a lot more to this than the church narrative suggests. If his July 12 1843 journal entry is truly from that day or within a few days, he would not mistakingly but clearly say that Joseph and Hyrum took the revelation and presented it to Emma. The church uses the more detailed account from 1874 with all the detail of only Hyrum taking it and getting reamed by Emma. Those are interesting theories on parts being added after meeting with Emma. Verses 51-66 are just so awful. Are you aware of accounts that say Emma burned it right at the time that it was presented to her? Or is the consensus that Joseph let her burn it later? I know there are accounts of that too.
@@Commenter2121 I haven't a firm opinion about the details, but possibly Clayton is conflating two events in 1874. Another possibility is that the phrase in the journal that that JS and Hyrum presented and read it to Emma is already a conflation of two events. It may have happened as Clayton described in 1874, but later that day JS approached Emma with the revelation and also failed.
Listen your work in this are is at the forefront. I really appreciate it. It is my opinion JS taught and was investigating the place of polygamy in religion, culture and history (it has a place) but that leadership was excited to add this new concept to the mix for their own motives. They also spiced up the history to support their version and compulsion of others. This does not invalidate polygamy entirely but actually does show how a misused principal can halt the work of God.
What place DOES it have? What about polyandry? Sarai had two husbands… Pharoah and Abraham. Why aren’t women able to be sealed to more than one husband? Jacob 2:30 says that If the Lord will curse those who practice polygamy, then they need to change their ways and raise up a righteous branch unto him. Otherwise, just stop practicing polygamy in the first place. It doesn’t say, “although I’ve been talking about polygamy being worse than anything including pride and whatever the Lamanites were doing, I think it’s GOOD to break the hearts of your wives and children and to abuse them through polygamy ONLY if I want a lot of babies to be born.” Which is what the current church narrative is.
@@RBD582 first logical fallacy, that polygamy is for men. You need to be able to critically think of what situation would women request polygamy. If you can't think of a hypothetical righteous intent in regard to this you may not have the tools to look into this issue in a logical manner.
Revelations often had multiple scribes
The issue is that Kingsbury formally claimed three separate times that he alone copied the entire document. I cover Kingsbury’s claims here ruclips.net/video/HheHqg4c3HQ/видео.html which you can read in summarized form at one hour, nine minutes and 40 seconds into the video. It’s a question of Kingsbury’s credibility.
@@robfotheringham2289 I would really love to talk to you in real life. How can I contact you?
The Spirit has confirmed that this channel is not of God, neither the person putting the channel out.
Thank you so much! I am so happy that I found a person on this site who is not deceived!! You would think that do many saints would not be deceived by this evil apostate who criticizes the church and /or it's leaders on every video he puts out!!!
Anyone who doesn't believe that Joseph Smith started polygamy needs to read these three documents:
The Nauvoo Expositor
Buckeye's Lamentation For Want Of More Wives
A Narrative of the Adventures and Experience of Joseph H. Jackson in Nauvoo
All three documents are on the internet, and each can be read in less than half an hour.
All three documents were published during Joseph Smith's lifetime.
Anyone who reads these three documents and still thinks that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy needs to have their head examined.