All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer
@@randyjordan5521I just got to say Randy, it's always refreshing to see you post a few one-liners like this. The posts where you cut and paste the same 100 tired references that have already been debunked are becoming harmful to the NSA's servers.
@@rocketzero2103 What you call "tired references" are the research and conclusions of legitimate, professional historians. If you don't accept the findings of scholars who have studied these issues for many years, you are in the same intellectual and psychological camp as Richard and Pamela Price and Michelle Stone. Here are some more "tired references" for you from a legitimate, professional historian: "From Joseph Smith’s first documented plural marriage in 1841 until his death more than three years later, some twenty-eight men and 106 women (as civil and plural wives) entered the prophet’s order of celestial matrimony.[1] Given the secrecy surrounding Smith’s controversial (and illegal) practice, the exact number of these earliest polygamists may never be known. However, enough information in the form of diaries, letters, autobiographies, reminiscences, affidavits, statements, and family histories has accumulated since the early 1840s-coupled with reasonable inferences and educated guesses-to enable a compelling, albeit tentative, identification.[2] "Based on the most convincing data presently available,[3] the following men either definitely or probably married additional wives with Joseph Smith’s permission prior to his death on June 27, 1844: James Adams, Ezra T. Benson, Reynolds Cahoon, William Clayton, Joseph W. Coolidge, Howard Egan, William Felshaw, William D. Huntington, Orson Hyde, Joseph A. Kelting, Heber C. Kimball, Vinson Knight, Isaac Morley, Joseph Bates Noble, John E. Page, Parley P. Pratt, Willard Richards, Hyrum Smith, John Smith, Joseph Smith, William Smith, Erastus Snow, John Taylor, Theodore Turley, Lyman Wight, Edwin D. Woolley, Brigham Young, and Lorenzo Dow Young. While the evidence in a few cases (i.e., Coolidge, Felshaw, Kelting, Page, and Wight) for an early plural marriage is circumstantial and conjectural, these twenty-eight men and their wives comprise the most likely candidates for membership in Joseph Smith’s inner circle of plural marriage participants. "The abundant evidence for Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo plural wives was first published in Andrew Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record 6 (May 1887): 233-34. Jenson was followed by Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, 2d ed., rev. and enl. (1945; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), 457-88; Thomas Milton Tinney, The Royal Family of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Junior (Salt Lake City: Tinney-Green[e] Family Organization Publishing Company, 1973); Danel W. Bachman, “A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith” (1975); George D. Smith, “Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy” (1994); D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (1994), 587-88; and most recently Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness. Although some readers may disagree in a handful of instances with Compton’s identifications of Smith’s Nauvoo wives,[74] I believe he is accurate. In fact, I am persuaded that the evidence allows for an additional four (if not more) plural wives-Mary Houston, Sarah Scott Mulholland, Mary Ann Frost Stearns Pratt, and Phebe Watrous Woodworth-bringing the total of Joseph Smith’s known Nauvoo plural wives to at least thirty-six." ---"Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841-1844", Gary James Bergera
@@randyjordan5521 LOL, keep plugging sweetheart. I don't mind looking at the research that historians like Bergera have published. I even own a few of his books. But I think it is a huge mistake to simply trust their conclusions because they've been peer reviewed.
The prevailing issue is that none of us have full access to all the information. If we were all able to view all of the documents and all of the sources, we’d be much better equipped to make the best informed decision with respect to polygamy. Since the church prevents us from having all of the information, the best we can do is analyze what’s available and seek light and truth from the Holy Ghost. I have done this for a year now. As an attorney, I try approach the subject as if I was trying to prove the case for (Michelle’s arguments) and against Joseph (traditional narrative). In my opinion, the case for Joseph’s innocence from polygamy is much stronger. 1. No children. 2. Nothing he ever taught or wrote. 3. Those closest to him denied it to their death. 4. Openly taught against it. 5. Fought legal battles opposing it. 6. D&C 132 does not and will never hold up. 7. Church will not give access to the one contemporary source that could convict him. 8. Does not fit Joseph’s character (and character does play into the evidence stage). 9. Many of the affidavits/testimony are contradictory and have no basis. 10. It’s simply not biblical and contradicts Joseph’s translation of the Bible. That’s just 10 points. I could easily hit 25. The brief on this would be 30-40 pages easily.
I don’t think he mentioned you or Whitney Horning because he doesn’t want to draw attention to you. He also probably hasn’t done his homework on what you’ve said so can’t comment.
Probably true, not everyone needs to be exposed to some of the worst motivated reasoning examples. It can cause the already stupid to become even dumber.
@@Hmcc0712 lol, oh I’ve listened. It’s both aggravating and psychologically fascinating. Michelle Stone is incapable of making a well reasoned coherent argument. She absolutely can’t make an argument without unjustified presuppositions, her methodology is completely based on motivated reasoning. At times she seems completely unaware of how irrational her methodology is. She makes the absolute stupidest arguments with a straight face giving the idea she has zero self awareness. But on the other hand she refuses to leave the amateur stage of RUclips and enter the professional arena of publishing and peer review which means she might be aware of the uncontrollable rolling laughter an editorial board would have when she tries making an argument based on unjustified presuppositions. It is interesting.
Regardless of your view, all must take note of the widespread movement within Mormonism of members questioning the historical narratives. The new perspectives on our leaders, the scrutiny on the “corporate church,” and the new views being shared. Quite interesting.
Very interesting. I think 2020 shattered a lot of people’s beliefs in structures and bureaucracies. And access to information is at an all time high and it doesn’t always (or ever) sustain the narrative they grew up with.
It seems that if it was honest, the first slide where Bowman lists "Polygamy Deniers" should include Joseph Smith Jr., Hyrum Smith and Emma Smith if he wants to be inclusive.
I think an important thing to point out with historians is that the debate is not whether or not there was a conspiracy. Either there was a conspiracy headed by Joseph Smith with his council of 50, or there was a different conspiracy headed by Brigham Young. But there absolutely was a conspiracy. Every historian researching this is a conspiracy theorist.
No, these are apples and oranges. “Well you are too” is one of Michelle’s many idiotic arguments. That Joseph was secretly practicing polygamy and lied about it isn’t that big of a conspiracy. It’s really simple, now apply Occam’s Razor: Some early conspirators spread rumors of polygamy which led to the 1835 revelation on marriage. Late 1830s Oliver Cowdrey and others join a conspiracy to accuse Smith of adultery. John C Bennet then exposes Smith as a polygamist as an independent conspirator not related to Cowdrey’s conspiracy. Then William and Wilson Law join in a separate conspiracy in exposing Smith with the Nauvoo Expositor, a new conspiracy not related to either Cowdrey or Bennet. William Clayton independently records sealing to Lucy Walker as an independent conspirator. Willard Richards ads in sealings as an independent conspirator Now Young joins the conspiracy and rewrites a bunch of history and plants evidence. And everyone’s favorite, he used a Smith impersonator 😂😂😂 William Marks claims Joseph was going to end polygamy, not that credible since every other close associate in the twelve do not say he was going to end polygamy. He was an ignorant conspirator. Michelle has that covered, in her episode 52 she reveled that Marks was too stupid to understand what Smith really meant, but Michelle’s psychic powers understands better 😂😂😂 Years later the affidavits are written by over two dozen women as part of a conspiracy. Then the women independently conspire in writing auto-biographies and personal correspondence never meant for public consumption. What is most likely? A series of convoluted and independent conspiracies? That 50+ people conspired and often independently conspired? Or that Joseph Smith, a guy who said he could see buried treasure with a magical rock, was lying along with his wife and brother? You cannot honestly using logic and reasoning call these two equal conspiracy theories.
Right?? Great point, Westivus - and the hilarious thing is Brian Hales and Todd Compton both talk about Joseph’s “polygamy inner circle” and who was and wasn’t in it…and then call others conspiracy theorists. It’s extraordinary.
@@CleanUpCongress there is quite a a difference. It is idiotic to compare. The logic/polygamy deniers believe multiple independent and multi faceted conspiracies. There was the rumor of polygamy that gave rise to the 1835 statement on marriage. Cowdrey accused Joseph of adultery. John C. Bennett exposed Smith. The Laws exposed Smith. After this consistent theme of unrelated people exposing Smith for different and unrelated reasons then Young and all the apostles confirmed Smith practices. William Marks who joined the RLDS also confirmed Smith’s practice. Then 30+ women write out the affidavits. Then women included their marriages to Smith in their autobiographies and talked about in personal correspondence. So about eight different multifaceted conspiracies involving 50+ people vs Smith having an inner circle of a few trusted men and Smith lying along with a couple others lying isn’t even close to the same. Apply some good logic, reading and Occam’s Razor
"A romanticized view of the nuclear family". To me that says it all. "When they are learned, they think they are wise." He is using manipulative speech. It's a ploy used in academia. How can he explain Brigham Young's awful attitude toward women? Journal of Discourses Vol 9 p31-40 is an excellent example of how Young manipulated his audience with flattery. Then he brings in instruction addressing the brethren, to get their attention. More flattery. Then when he has them where he wants them, he uses shaming and belittling. Page 36 "I will now speak a little in regard to people's making themselves happy....if there is a comfort, a felicity, and a good feeling, I want to say a few words about them ...and that is the plurality of women.... I am almost daily sealing YOUNG GIRLS to MEN OF AGE AND EXPERIENCE. Love your duties sisters." He goes on with more manipulative word play. I bring this up because this Phd is doing the same thing. A Phd is meaningless. As you pointed out his is in error. He hides behind his Phd label as a shield. I hope he comes to realize we can see right through it.
I love how they like to draw on the caricatured idea of the 1950s when if you know your polygamy history, you know that this effort to purge the Church of polygamy and recreate an idealized monogamy goes clear back to 1933 when they released the Third Manifesto to redefine celestial marriage. This was 20 years before Ozzie and Harriet. Just goes to show that the research is sloppy.
Also note that Law and the Expositor NEVER leaked Joseph as a polygamist; it only leaked Joseph as a receiver of a revelation on polygamy (which of course is disputed). But, still, it is significant that the Expositor makes no accusation that Joseph himself had multiple wives or was practicing polygamy.
LOL. The "Expositor" publishers were well aware of Joseph's polygamy practice. On February 7, 1844, Wilson Law published a satirical poem titled "Buckeye's Lament for Want of More Wives," which detailed Joseph's spiritual wifery practice in detail and named some of his plural wives. On May 13, 1844, William Law wrote in his diary that Joseph "had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman". William Law filed legal charges against Smith of "living in an open state of adultery with Maria Lawrence" on May 23, 1844. The "Expositor" text states: "We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles;" Also: "It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place?- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that Brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father of mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God.--They are visited again, and what is the result? They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front--Positively NO Admittance. The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable; but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God, When in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph's) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently,and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings form the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it-but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder-struck, faints recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects." End quotes. It's a sad fact that the people who assert that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy are among the the least informed on the actual facts of the issue.
" Law and the Expositor NEVER leaked Joseph as a polygamist; it only leaked Joseph as a receiver of a revelation on polygamy (which of course is disputed)." LOL. That is only "disputed" by people who worship Joseph Smith and refuse to believe that he was a liar, a hypocrite, and an adulterer. The first report of Joseph Smith's "spiritual wifery" practice was published on July 13, 1842, by 17 year old Martha Brotherton. She related Joseph's and Brigham Young's attempt to pressure her into plural marrying Young: "brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come, and brother Joseph will marry us here to-day, and you can go home this evening, and your parents will not know any thing about it." Note that the verbiage Martha recounted is similar to that in the "revelation on celestial marriage", which Joseph formally dictated to William Clayton a year later. The fact that Martha, as well as numerous other people, cited/quoted similar verbiage which Joseph had used when presenting the plural marriage doctrine to them, proves that the concepts came from Joseph Smith. Hyrum Smith presented the "revelation on celestial marriage" to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843, to seek their vote to sustain it as church doctrine. Six men who were in that meeting filed legal affidavits stating that the document which Hyrum Smith read is the same text as D&C 132 today. Austin Cowles, one of those men, filed his affidavit to that effect on May 4, 1844. Cowles opposed Hyrum's proposal, and he joined with William Law and other dissenters to publish the "Expositor." Law added his own affidavit to Cowles': "I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.-And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines." If Joseph and Hyrum Smith had not been preaching and practicing plural marriage, Law and Cowles & Co. would not, nor could not, have filed those affidavits, or bothered to publish the "Expositor." And Joseph would have had no reason to order their printing press destroyed. So the only people who "dispute" that the document originated from Joseph Smith are those who are in intellectual or emotional denial of historical facts.
@randyjordan5521, we have been over these points on these forums over and over as nauseum. My point was merely that the “affidavits” in the Expositor say nothing about JS practicing polygamy. As for your other points, both Buckey’s Lamentation and the Martha Brotherton affidavit come through John Bennett, with no original. The so-called William Law journal has been debunked - nobody has ever seen it; all we have is a typed copy that arose circa 1984 that is just a few pages and only covers the dates leading up to and including the martyrdom. Every piece of evidence that I’ve ever seen has some problem or another, and THAT is why I dispute our currently accepted narrative, not because I need JS to be “perfect.”
Cheryl, Even though I disagree with you on this subject, I respect you for your willingness to respectfully engage. Do you think the Church should release William Clayton's diaries? Do you think it will shed light on this contenteous subject one way or the other?
OMG. The portions of Clayton's journals which deal with the Nauvoo period were published in 1979. Historian Andrew Ehat was given permission to research Clayton's journals in church archives. He transcribed them, and someone leaked them to Jerald Tanner, and the Tanners published them. They have been on the internet for as long as I've had internet service, which was 1996. There are no unpublished portions of Clayton's journals which could shed more light on the beginnings of plural marriage or somehow magically overturn the fact that Joseph Smith originated plural marriage and dictated the "revelation" to Clayton.
Absolutely. I'm looking forward to the release of the Clayton diaries, and it can't come too soon for me. Although I believe that we have had access to transcripts of all pertinent portions for many years, it will be important to examine the diary itself, or at least scans of it, to check its contemporary nature and other items.
@@cherylbruno5368 I don't know what further information there would be in any unpublished portions of Clayton's diaries that would tell us any more about Joseph Smith's involvement in polygamy than the portions that were published in 1979. The parts that have been on-line document Clayton's day-to-day dealings with Joseph. Much of what Clayton wrote is corroborated by other contemporary sources. For instance, Joseph H. Jackson's June 1844 memoir mentions Clayton: "He has lived with his wife and wife's sister in common for the last year, and has children by both of them." That corroborates Clayton's journal entries which document Joseph Smith performing his plural marriage to his wife's sister, Margaret Moon. "On the 27th of April, 1843, the Prophet Joseph Smith married to me Margaret Moon, for time and eternity, at the residence of Elder Heber C. Kimball In April, 1843, he /Joseph Smith/ sealed to me my second wife, my first wife being then living." Clayton also noted the birth of his son by Margaret: "18 February 1844, Sunday Sunday 18th. About 12 A.M. M began to be sick and continued to grow worse until 5 o clock when she was delivered of a son. She did remarkably well for which I thank my heavenly father. Mother attended her. I was at home all day. M. seems to do very well" Joseph H. Jackson could not possibly have known about Clayton's plural marriage situation if he had not witnessed it personally. Therefore, that confirms the veracity of Clayton's diary, and completely blows apart the theory that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy.
Polygamy deniers are more ancient than modern. It wasn’t just Joseph and Hyrum, but Emma, Lucy, and the prophet Jacob (who was quoting the Lord in his book), too. YES. I am proudly a polygamy denier alongside Christ. I’m confused why the Book of Mormon is still not the most correct book among Mormons??
Vague comment, can you help me understand? Note: Michelle and Denver (since he was discussed in this podcast) have given strong reasons why their stance is more valid and persuasive than the traditional church narrative. Is your comment going to be a more persuasive rebuttal than what they’ve already discussed? Please share. Genuine question because I’d be interested in learning something new.
@@jeffreyrichardson_My perspective is based on Bible as the standard for God word. In summary, Jesus in the new testament 100% supported and obeyed the Torah Law. Therefore Jesus also supports the pro-polygyny sections of Torah. The idea that Jesus created a new standard of monogamy is just not found anywhere in the text.
I would be very leery of going in the direction of peer review. What makes your research so refreshing and compelling is the very reason that it is NOT filtered through the consensus mill.
@@onesmalllight2 : Scholarly peer review doesn't attempt to filter evidence through consensus. Scholarly peer review doesn't judge or condemn a finding. It merely examines methods through reasonable impartial review. Emotionally laden discourses in the podcast-era isn't a respectable debate. If authentic research was yielded, what's the fear in unveiling it through scholastic academic publishing?
It’s church historians like this guy.. who truly have hearts of intentionally lying.. be fully aware of his intentions to deceive the saints… how can anyone with intentions to deceive claim to be a follower of God… ??
That’s a great idea, Cheryl! I can see the use of this method spread to historical topics outside of Mormon polygamy if this goes well. Perhaps even extend to various other fields of study. In the long term, I can see this aiding in preventing the spread of false information, which seems to be rampant these days among all subject matters. I commend you for this innovative idea.
I might say something ignorant about the peer review process here, since I dont know all the ins and outs, but I can imagine how this would go if podcasts were to be peer-reviewed by church historians. Brian would come on and talk about how the "but one" clause in the original revelation on marriage would trump everything that is in that scripture, or that was taught by Joseph Smith, ever. And then they would refer to their own publications as proof against all the historical records that have been dug up that don't fit the standard narrative. It's like the idea that we are supposed to pray about everything for confirmation that it is true. But only for confirmation. Pray to know that what the prophet said is true. If you get the answer that it's not then you aren't credentialed. Now we can have motivated church historians use their "authority" to say that our research isn't true because they will only hold it up against the published church narrative. If it doesn't match then you are just an amatuer conspiracy theorist appstate cult following deceived self published nobody. #fwelingskeptical
@@Washingtontree The church spent a fortune on forged documents. Mark W Hofman. He ended up killing himself accidentally during an attempted bombing. I was a new member at the time. That's one of the reasons why I hold fast to my testimony of the Book of Mormon and to the teachings of Joseph Smith.
There is a mountain of evidence which proves that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy that was published during his lifetime, and thus was not edited or altered by the church.
Ahh, yes. The era of Boyd K. Packer's war against Mormon historians. I'm convinced that the only reason Michelle is still in the church is because he is no longer alive.
Michelle, Cheryl is your best guest ( I loved the Masonry episode). And her position is the exact same as mine: Skeptical of polygamy. Accept that Joseph practiced it.
That’s where I was at for a while but when I talked to historians, they never gave me enough evidence to convict Joseph. Every piece of evidence historians presented is trash. It’s all twisted and circumstantial. When they can produce legitimate evidence then I can move on. Until then, innocent until proven guilty
The problem is with the structure of Academia. It is a profession, they are paid to shuffle around old bones. There needs to be conflict of interest disclosures of all the professional thinkers. Unfortunately, the Church leadership and their massive support staff are all employees now. Follow the money.
Excellent podcast, as usual, Michelle. I do have some pushback on a few points. 1. You keep on mentioning that Bowman and Park's behavior is potentially damaging their credibility. I totally disagree. By its very nature, the idea of one having credibility requires that a group of people give that person his/her credibility. In the case of these academics, the only credibility they care about is that which is given them by their vaunted institutions and "esteemed" colleagues. Nothing they've said will damage their credibility in the eyes of these people or the centers of power that credentialize them. Quite the opposite. By "circling the wagons" with these kinds of dismissive, arrogant pieces they've published, they're seen (again, by those whose opinion they care about) as defending the truth. 2. While I totally get your desire to publish academically reviewed papers in the future, I also think that's the wrong move. That will not bring more people to the truth. It will seemingly get you and your arguments more credibility and visibility, though you will struggle to break into that world at all, regardless of the strength of your arguments or the rigor with which you present them. The bottom line is you're not in the club and you never will be because you don't "follow the rules". 3. I also think the "peer review" podcast idea isn't going to work. Certainly no harm in doing it, but it's not going to suddenly turn what is, by it's very nature, an anti-establishment movement, into a mainstream, establishment-approved enterprise. That's the whole idea of peer review--to add the imprimatur of establishment authority to a given work. The work of Christianity, as Connor Boyack astutely points out in his "Christ Versus Caesar" book is anti-establishment. Without getting into it, the people who would approve of the "peer review" process are not independent-thinking people. They're just not. They're consensus-driven people whose worse nightmare is to be classified with the "hoi polloi" which in our day is analogous to the labels of "conspiracy theorist", "right wing", etc. These people's worst nightmare is that something might think they're a Republican or, even worse, a Trump supporter. Anyway, getting a little carried away. My whole point here, in short, is that you should keep on doing what you're doing. You're doing God's work on this podcast. Keep on doing it. Don't change. Don't try to get in people's good graces. Keep on being you!
comment. . . Has Cheryl addressed Michelle's historical concerns regarding polygamy? If so, how does she still feel the predominant narrative is "compelling" and has "convinced" her?
I can definitely sympathize with that. I have the exact same problem. However, if a historian is going to take time to speak to a topic -- writing articles, creating videos, giving extensive interviews about it, should we not expect them to put forward the time to try to gain some basic understanding of that topic? Does having a PhD give you permission to speak authoritatively about things that you haven't actually taken the time to understand? If they don't have time to learn about it, then they shouldn't address it. If they address it, then I believe they are obligated to gain some actual understanding, and participate in some genuine engagement.
@danvogel6802 you seem to have time to watch and comment on many of Michelle's episodes. Why don't you appear on one and tell her (and the rest of us) where she is wrong?
Sources have been democratized, but methodology hasn't. The only way to move new interpretations from the fringe to the mainstream is through good methodology. Polygamy skeptics aren't heard because they are speaking a different language, playing a different game, making a lot of mistakes.
I'm always open to correction. I will continue to invite you to show me things you think I am getting or doing wrong. It seems you are claiming the historians are using good methodology and aren't making mistakes on this topic. I very strongly disagree.
@@MichelleBStone I’ve pointed out problems in your methodology multiple times but you choose to ignore it. In the episode you claim to understand Smith’s words to Marks better than Marks was outrageous. Your only argument for it was a presupposition that Smith and Marks are honest. Such methodology is good for faith beliefs but not scholarship. I’d love to see you try to publish your arguments in that episode.
@@MichelleBStone your episode on birth control was full of presuppositions. You assume Joseph wouldn’t do the pull out method, which is 96% effective if done correctly, because of the Old Testament. You assume Bennett would be willing to do things to prevent pregnancy that Joseph wouldn’t based on your presuppositions about what an upstanding guy old Joe is. You assume the women wouldn’t do certain things for contraceptives. You claim they are lying about being married to Joseph out one side of your mouth and also claim that none said they used methods to avoid pregnancy. Are they liars or not?
I agree that those he brings up in the article are not the main ones. I have been debating those in this movement for many years, and rarely did I hear Denver Snuffer as a source. Yes, the main focus with the Griffins is John Taylor killed Joseph (according to them). They don't believe Joseph Smith practiced polygamy but also don't believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. In my opinion, here is my list of those at the forefront of this movement. 1. Nephi Explorer (Ryan Fisher) 2. Doctrine of Christ 2. Hemlock Knotts 3. Rob Fotheringham 4. Whitney Honer 5. This channel I believe all are not just polygamy deniers but against the Temple and ordances. Some have either left the church or have been excommunicated. All teach similar doctrines and ideas.
If a historian is a member of the Church in good standing this line of thinking is scary for them, I'm sure. The rational next step if polygamy wasn't authorized or taught by JSJr is that the LDS church has a very shaky foundation which is why so many people leave the church when they begin to learn about the details about polygamy - whether they believe JSJr did it or did not do it. So, for an LDS historian they likely feel it puts even their testimony at risk to even consider it which is why they don't touch this topic unless it's to dismiss it or superficially discuss it.
I read Lucy Walker’s story one night in the book In Sacred Loneliness. Such a horrific, sad story. I woke up in a panic that night, thinking about how scared and alone she says she was after being threatened by Joseph that she and her family would lose their salvation if she rejected his offer to be his polygamous wife. Such a young girl and so alone in her fear and confusion. She says she wished for her dead mother to come comfort her. She talks about wishing she could die rather than face what he was telling her she had to do. Is it your opinion that Lucy just made this story up? Have you talked about her in any of your episodes?
My belief is that Joseph lost it near the end of his life, because his behavior is highly eradic compared to earlier in his life. I think it is polygamy that got him murdered. Now... there is evidence that Joseph did not have Emma sealed to him. I think a lot of the problems with polygamy can be left right at the feet of Brigham, and I truly think that Brigham had a hand in Joseph's death. I think Joseph had a huge problem in eradic sexual overtones/behavior and this single thing is why he suffered more because of... than anything else.
The Utah church never denied that Smith practiced polygamy. They just downplayed the down and dirty details of it. The church has depicted Smith as a "reluctant polygamist" who declined to obey the revelation until God sent an angel with a drawn sword to threaten to kill him if he didn't screw other women. The church also falsely led their members to believe that Smith only plural married a few old spinster women or widows "for eternity." But after so much information had been published on the details of his practice over the last few decades, the church was forced to admit to the truth in essays which were published on their website. Those essays are the reason why Michelle Stone and her fellow travelers refuse to believe that Joseph started polygamy: they know that admitting that is also an admission that he was a liar, a hypocrite, and an adulterer. So Michelle & Co. have gone into intellectual and emotional denial of the facts. That's a hell of a way to live a life.
Wow. Did you even listen to this episode? There you are claiming to know anything about why Michelle and others in her camp believe the way they believe and getting it completely wrong, commenting about it on the episode where she talks about how ridiculous it is that a historian wrote a newspaper article with his incorrect guess at why Michelle and people in her camp believe what they believe. Lol.
@@melanieposton4560 I have listened to hundreds of hours of Michelle whining about why her church is clearly lying to her about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Have you even read the gospel topics essay and all of the footnotes regarding polygamy in Nauvoo . I am a never Mormon and I know more about your church than 95% of the members Trust me on this one
@@melanieposton4560 I, for one, know exactly why Michelle believes the way she does: She worships Joseph Smith, therefore she refuses to believe that he was a liar, an adulterer, and a hypocrite. So Michelle ignores the mountain of evidence that refutes her beliefs.
comI'm confused. If Cheryl finds the traditional narrative convincing, why does she assert that she does not think we know why Joseph started polygamy? I thought the traditional narrative was clear: he started it because he was commanded and even forced with a sword to do so by God Himself. Cheryl, if you are still convinced by that narrative, why would you question why he started Polygamy? Also, if you don't know why he started Polygmay, are you beginning to doubt that God commanded him to do it, and if so, what does that say about Josepg as a Prophet? If Joseph started Polygamy, but you don't know why, how can you uphold Josepg as a Prophet, since if he did something not Divinely commanded how was he acting as a Prophet? Also, what does that say about Brfgham Young as his successor and someone who represented God, even if you accept that Brigham only represented God as a minister but not a Prophet? Cheryl, are you not logically inconsistent if you criticize others for not addressing issues head-on if you yourself are not doing that yourself? I would like to see, you, Cheryl, answer some of these direct questions about your engaging yet not totally being logically consistent. Cheryl, if you are saying you are unsure right now if you have all the answers, that is fair. I'm just trying to get a really good radar fix on where you are. I certainly pray Cheryl that God will continue to direct your heart. If I am overly presumptive or critical in my questions let me know gently, but know that I am asking with a honest desire to understand where you are at and to be sure that you have completely thought through or at least are trying to think through what you are doing as you engage with these issues. Michelle, you are not just a nobody just because you don't have credentials. Jesus and Paul had no human credentials, although paul was trained in the Jewish tradition, but that's not what he ended up promoting, at least not as the people who trained him believed he should have, and I don't think Joseph or any of the actual Prophets have encouraged us to trust people because of credentials. I think that is where the Community of Christ went off the rails. They wanted to be recognized by the world, so they started promoting ministry with credentials, as versus ministry by Divine callings.
The difference is that Abraham Lincoln scholars are debating. With polygamy it’s not scholars debating. Polygamy deniers completely refuse to actually join the debate in the academic arena, they refuse to publish or even try to. Whether polygamy deniers want to admit the it or not, this is the identical situation with flat earthers and Intelligent Design. One side can only self-publish and make noise online.
You seem to imply flat earth and intelligent design are opposing views. There are over 200 verses in the scriptures that describe the creation and shape of the earth, and not one of them describes it as a spinning ball hurtling through space. The FEers I know all very much believe in intelligent design. I even know some who were atheists before learning what they believe as the truth of where we live. Just an observation.
@@Kristy_not_Kristine i should word it differently. The point is those two groups fighting against regular science can only self publish, just like polygamy deniers.
I’m a “polygamy denier” and that’s not correct. At what point does Joseph get to speak for himself? If you look at everything Joseph taught *while he was alive* from discourses, letters, and his journal entries you will see he never spoke in favor of polygamy. He ONLY condemned it. Why will you not believe his words? The problem with scholars who are more interested in defending their institution than the messenger God sent is they DON’T let Joseph speak for himself.
@jeffreyrichardson_ BINGO 💥 No one wanted to hear what Joseph had to say when he was alive and they still don't want to know what he really said. Reminds me of another who was taken out for his preaching and practices as well(Jesus Christ).Seems we "deniers" are in good company
57:25 “way more people leave the church over the Joseph Smith polygamy narrative”. Correct me if I’m making too many assumptions here but, could you explain to me how adopting the narrative that Brigham Young was a liar and was not a true prophet and the priesthood keys didn’t pass to him and therefore we don’t have the line of apostolic succession somehow inspires members to remain true to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?😂
History is not a science, so credentials is not a good argument. But good independent historians still publish. They engage the peer review process. A credential is not necessary for publishing. Polygamy deniers do refuse to graduate little league and join the big kids in publishing. If polygamy deniers want to be taken seriously, they must publish, not self publish. They can disagree with the need to publish, but they will never make a long lasting impact playing on social media.
These Joseph Smith polygamy deniers are really just an echo chamber. Like flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, and believers in other conspiracy theories, all they want is some fellow travelers to engage with to confirm their beliefs.
Most work on polygamy has certainly been self-published in books from Fawn Brodie to Van Wagoner to Quinn. Likewise that's where the skeptical literature has focused. Some have even published through Sunstone. I don't think it's critical that we play in the published journal sandbox. We can convince more people just by self publishing than working through some intersectionally focused history journal. We are also painfully aware how broken and ineffectual peer review is in the social sciences. It's not because we can't. It's because we most likely don't care. The field is accessible enough for amateurs. It's not rocket science.
@@PeterBrownscouts ok, you seem very clueless on this process let me educate you. First and foremost, not a single author you named was self-published. They had to through a publisher and the peer review process. Especially the publisher Brodie went through as well as Benjamin Park. Hopefully you don’t make that false claim again. History is open to non-academics, but the arena in which you put ideas out there is through the peer review process. You self-proclaim yourself an expert on a RUclips channel forever. You will get uneducated followers, pats on the back, huggie wuggie’s, and all the other attention people that cry and sniffle as much as Michelle Stone does wants. But if you actually want to change a historical narrative and change history books, it will not happen playing in little league on RUclips. Going to have to play in the big leagues. If hugs is what you want, stay in RUclips and be viewed as a clown like Michelle Stone is. Would love to hear where the peer review process is broken, I do know of some places but history is not among them.
@@PeterBrownscouts ok, you seem very clueless on this process let me educate you. First and foremost, not a single author you named was self-published. They had to through a publisher and the peer review process. Especially the publisher Brodie went through as well as Benjamin Park. Hopefully you don’t make that false claim again. History is open to non-academics, but the arena in which you put ideas out there is through the peer review process. You self-proclaim yourself an expert on a RUclips channel forever. You will get uneducated followers, pats on the back, huggie wuggie’s, and all the other attention people that cry and sniffle as much as Michelle Stone does wants. But if you actually want to change a historical narrative and change history books, it will not happen playing in little league on RUclips. Going to have to play in the big leagues. If hugs is what you want, stay in RUclips and be viewed as a clown like Michelle Stone is. Would love to hear where the peer review process is broken, I do know of some places but history is not among them.
@@randyjordan5521 ok, you seem very clueless on this process let me educate you. First and foremost, not a single author you named was self-published. They had to through a publisher and the peer review process. Especially the publisher Brodie went through as well as Benjamin Park. Hopefully you don’t make that false claim again. History is open to non-academics, but the arena in which you put ideas out there is through the peer review process. You self-proclaim yourself an expert on a RUclips channel forever. You will get uneducated followers, pats on the back, huggie wuggie’s, and all the other attention people that cry and sniffle as much as Michelle Stone does wants. But if you actually want to change a historical narrative and change history books, it will not happen playing in little league on RUclips. Going to have to play in the big leagues. If hugs is what you want, stay in RUclips and be viewed as a clown like Michelle Stone is. Would love to hear where the peer review process is broken, I do know of some places but history is not among them.
John Smith (Uncle John), brother of Joseph Smith, Sr., practiced plural marriage and followed Brigham Young and the Saints to Utah. Joseph Smith's first cousins practiced plural marriages, including George Albert Smith, Silas Smith, and Jesse Nathaniel Smith. Saint George is named after George Albert Smith. Mary Fielding Smith married Heber C. Kimball, plurally, as she would testify that her husband, Hyrum, married her sister Mercy, in plurality. How many Smith's and progenitors of Asael Smith need to practice plural marriage? They knew Joseph better than Phil Davis and Michelle Stone could ever claim.
@@MichelleBStone : · Hyrum Smith married Jerusha Barden in 1826. Born to this union are six children, including John Smith, who would later serve as Patriarch to the Church, while practicing plural marriage in Utah. Hyrum Smith’s son John Smith is not to be confused with “Uncle John”, the brother of Joseph Smith, Sr., who also served as Patriarch to the Church, and practiced plural marriage in Utah. · Jerusha Barden died in 1837. Hyrum Smith became a widower. I don’t think you need a citation for that. · Hyrum Smith married Mary Fielding, December 24th, 1837. Born to this union is two more children, including Joseph F. Smith (Sixth President). Mercy Fielding Smith is obviously Mary Fielding’s sister. Mercy is married to Robert B. Thompson. I don’t think you need a citation for this, but here you go anyways: o Arrington, Madsen, and Jones, Mothers of the Prophets, 96-98; Jeffrey S. O’Driscoll, Hyrum Smith: A Life of Integrity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 163-64. · Mercy and Robert B. Thompson kept Mary and Hyrum’s children in their home during Hyrum’s incarceration, and in Nauvoo, the two families built homes next to one another. Mercy also nursed Joseph F. Smith when Mary was too sick to do so. Here is the citation: o Jennifer Reeder, “‘The Blessing of the Lord Has Attended Me’: Mercy Rachel Fielding Thompson (1807-1893),” in Richard E. Turley Jr. and Brittany A. Chapman, eds., Women of Faith in the Latter Days: Volume One, 1775-1820 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 424-25. · Robert B. Thompson died in 1841. Mercy Fielding Thompson became a widow. Here is the citation: o (Mercy Fielding Thompson, Robert B. Thompson biography by Mercy R. Thompson, 1854 November, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.) · Mercy Fielding Thompson and the late Robert B. Thompson were sealed for time and eternity in May, 1843, with Hyrum Smith standing in for Robert B. Thompson. Joseph Smith performed the sealing. Following this ordinance, Hyrum Smith is sealed to Mary Fielding Smith for time and eternity. Mercy’s exuberance knew no bounds. “Some may think I could envy Queen Victoria in some of her glory,” she said. “Not while my name stands first on the list in this Dispensation of women sealed to a Dead Husband through divine Revelation.” Here is the citation: o Thompson, Reminiscence, 195. Several other couples were married for eternity on this same occasion: Brigham Young and his wife Mary Ann Angell; Brigham Young and his deceased wife, Miriam Works (with Mary Ann Angell acting as proxy); and Willard Richards and his wife, Jennetta Richards. Joseph Smith journal, May 29, 1843, Joseph Smith Collection, Church History Library, Salt Lake City; Lyndon W. Cook, Nauvoo Marriages, Proxy Sealings, 1843-1846 (Provo, UT: Grandin Book, 2004), 5. · Robert B. Thompson appeared as an angel to Joseph Smith and informs Joseph that he does not want Mercy to be lonely. The angel proposes to Joseph Smith that Hyrum marry Mercy for time, as a plural wife, while Mercy remains sealed to Robert in the eternities. Here is the citation: o Mercy Fielding Thompson letter to Joseph Smith III, Sept. 5, 1883, Joseph F. Smith Papers 1854-1918, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. · Joseph Smith committed Mary Fielding Smith to talk to Mercy and introduces the idea of Mercy marrying Hyrum for time. Here is the citation: o Cook, Nauvoo Marriages, Proxy Sealings, 3. The conversion of Hyrum Smith to plural marriage is in 1843. Andrew F. Ehat, A Holy Order: Joseph Smith, the Temple, and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question (Printed by author, 1990), 28-32; Ruth Vose Sayers, Affidavit, May 1, 1869, Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, 5:9, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. · Hyrum Smith then spoke to Mercy Thompson on the subject of plural marriage. Here is the citation and testimony of Mercy Fielding with accounts of her sister, Mary: o Thompson, Mercy Rachel Fielding 1807-1893. Mercy F. Thompson autobiographical sketch, Church History Library, catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=f3e7311c-cd9c-4dea-811e-bdb9d973fa26&crate=0&index=2. Accessed: August 11, 2020. · Hyrum is sealed to Jerusha for eternity, with Mary Fielding Smith acting as proxy to Jerusha. Hyrum Smith is now sealed to two women for eternity. Hyrum is sealed for time to Mercy in 1843. Here is the citation: o Newell, Linda King; Valeen Tippetts Avery (1994). Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (2nd ed.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 142. ISBN 0-252-06291-4. · Joseph and Hyrum Smith are murdered in 1844. Mary Fielding Smith becomes a widow and Mercy Fielding Thompson Smith becomes a widow again. · Mary Fielding Smith married Elder Heber C. Kimball of the Twelve, plurally for time. She dies in the faith in Utah in 1852. She is one of the first pioneers in the valley and laughs at Cornelius Lott for doubting her. Her grave marker reads “Smith” on it. · Mercy Fielding Smith marries Elder John Taylor of the Twelve, plurally for time. The two had been friends since their mutual conversion from Methodism, in Toronto, where the Fielding’s had proselytized to John Taylor. She died in the faith in Utah in 1893. Her grave marker bears the name “Thompson” on it. She is buried next to her sister, Mary. · Catherine Phillips was also sealed to Hyrum Smith for eternity. She never remarried. She died in the faith at 86, in Salt Lake City. · You have subtlety alluded to the new belief that Heber C. Kimball and John Taylor murdered Hyrum Smith. · The sealings are recorded.
@@TaiHoo-c8h LOL, I am extremely familiar with all of these claims. Thank you for providing actual citations of the fact that Jerusha and Hyrum were married and had children and that Mary Fielding was his second wife and that they also had children. The rest of your citations are not helpful at all. They are the amusing late claims of Mercy and others that do not at all stand up at all to scrutiny. Hyrum's supposed polygamy is actually one of the most amusing parts of this entire discussion.
@@MichelleBStone this is where your church is so freaking pathetic . There is not a single Doctrine that hasn't changed. You're pathetic church is making things up as it goes along and you are just sacrificing your mental health trying to keep up. If you think you are going to change the church you are woefully mistaken
@@personofinterest8731 Needless to say they still very clearly say that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy by marrying 14-year-olds and other men's wives. The fact that he had 30-plus wives is unambiguous
The evidence is overwhelming that Joseph Smith II practiced polygamy. And I am willing to look at all the evidence presented by all sources. Evidence is not endless preachings or opinions. The reason the evidence is overwhelming is the independence of sources, and the collateral evidences as Celestial Kingdom, which has no purpose without polygamy. One fact is, that Joe had taken himself a young girl to wife, and promised his followers that of his lineage there should be a son, who should be to them prophet, priest, and king. Unluckily, however, the priest and king turned out to be a female. But I suppose the faithful will receive her as pythoness and queen, and nursing mother in the church.- Daily Evening Gazette St Louis Wednesday Aug 15, 1838 (Vol. 1)
Seems to me that Michelle Stone's biggest beef with this Matt Bowman guy is that he didn't list her as one of the major Joseph Smith polygamy denier conspiracy theorists.
Question: Isn't it true that God's law requires 2 people be married, preferably sealed, in order to have children? If so, explain Christ's birth to Mary. And what will God do with all those children born to the extra wives, married under plural marriage in the temple? Are they sealed or not? If 132 was wrong, wouldn't generations of members alive today be under condemnation for not being properly sealed under a false law, and the earth be smitten with a curse? Malachi 4:6. Or did the Lord recognize those sealings??? I've found the answers in Section 132, but if we can ignore scripture and prophets bc it doesn't fit my world view of things, let's just ignore the scriptures and prophets...like what the alphabet crew does with The Family Proclamation.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Volume 4 of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy by the Price’s is in the process of being finished and hopefully will be ready to go to print soon. 🙏
The first three volumes were excellent. I got hard copies of them all! Excellent research by the Price's!
I assume that it's in the fiction section of bookstores.
@@randyjordan5521I just got to say Randy, it's always refreshing to see you post a few one-liners like this. The posts where you cut and paste the same 100 tired references that have already been debunked are becoming harmful to the NSA's servers.
@@rocketzero2103 What you call "tired references" are the research and conclusions of legitimate, professional historians. If you don't accept the findings of scholars who have studied these issues for many years, you are in the same intellectual and psychological camp as Richard and Pamela Price and Michelle Stone.
Here are some more "tired references" for you from a legitimate, professional historian:
"From Joseph Smith’s first documented plural marriage in 1841 until his death more than three years later, some twenty-eight men and 106 women (as civil and plural wives) entered the prophet’s order of celestial matrimony.[1] Given the secrecy surrounding Smith’s controversial (and illegal) practice, the exact number of these earliest polygamists may never be known. However, enough information in the form of diaries, letters, autobiographies, reminiscences, affidavits, statements, and family histories has accumulated since the early 1840s-coupled with reasonable inferences and educated guesses-to enable a compelling, albeit tentative, identification.[2]
"Based on the most convincing data presently available,[3] the following men either definitely or probably married additional wives with Joseph Smith’s permission prior to his death on June 27, 1844: James Adams, Ezra T. Benson, Reynolds Cahoon, William Clayton, Joseph W. Coolidge, Howard Egan, William Felshaw, William D. Huntington, Orson Hyde, Joseph A. Kelting, Heber C. Kimball, Vinson Knight, Isaac Morley, Joseph Bates Noble, John E. Page, Parley P. Pratt, Willard Richards, Hyrum Smith, John Smith, Joseph Smith, William Smith, Erastus Snow, John Taylor, Theodore Turley, Lyman Wight, Edwin D. Woolley, Brigham Young, and Lorenzo Dow Young. While the evidence in a few cases (i.e., Coolidge, Felshaw, Kelting, Page, and Wight) for an early plural marriage is circumstantial and conjectural, these twenty-eight men and their wives comprise the most likely candidates for membership in Joseph Smith’s inner circle of plural marriage participants.
"The abundant evidence for Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo plural wives was first published in Andrew Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record 6 (May 1887): 233-34. Jenson was followed by Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, 2d ed., rev. and enl. (1945; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), 457-88; Thomas Milton Tinney, The Royal Family of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Junior (Salt Lake City: Tinney-Green[e] Family Organization Publishing Company, 1973); Danel W. Bachman, “A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith” (1975); George D. Smith, “Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy” (1994); D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (1994), 587-88; and most recently Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness. Although some readers may disagree in a handful of instances with Compton’s identifications of Smith’s Nauvoo wives,[74] I believe he is accurate. In fact, I am persuaded that the evidence allows for an additional four (if not more) plural wives-Mary Houston, Sarah Scott Mulholland, Mary Ann Frost Stearns Pratt, and Phebe Watrous Woodworth-bringing the total of Joseph Smith’s known Nauvoo plural wives to at least thirty-six."
---"Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841-1844", Gary James Bergera
@@randyjordan5521 LOL, keep plugging sweetheart.
I don't mind looking at the research that historians like Bergera have published. I even own a few of his books. But I think it is a huge mistake to simply trust their conclusions because they've been peer reviewed.
The prevailing issue is that none of us have full access to all the information. If we were all able to view all of the documents and all of the sources, we’d be much better equipped to make the best informed decision with respect to polygamy. Since the church prevents us from having all of the information, the best we can do is analyze what’s available and seek light and truth from the Holy Ghost. I have done this for a year now. As an attorney, I try approach the subject as if I was trying to prove the case for (Michelle’s arguments) and against Joseph (traditional narrative). In my opinion, the case for Joseph’s innocence from polygamy is much stronger. 1. No children. 2. Nothing he ever taught or wrote. 3. Those closest to him denied it to their death. 4. Openly taught against it. 5. Fought legal battles opposing it. 6. D&C 132 does not and will never hold up. 7. Church will not give access to the one contemporary source that could convict him. 8. Does not fit Joseph’s character (and character does play into the evidence stage). 9. Many of the affidavits/testimony are contradictory and have no basis. 10. It’s simply not biblical and contradicts Joseph’s translation of the Bible. That’s just 10 points. I could easily hit 25. The brief on this would be 30-40 pages easily.
THIS!!!! 💯!!!! Plus for me I’ve gone to God and asked as I believe all should about everything.
I don’t think he mentioned you or Whitney Horning because he doesn’t want to draw attention to you. He also probably hasn’t done his homework on what you’ve said so can’t comment.
I agree.
Probably true, not everyone needs to be exposed to some of the worst motivated reasoning examples. It can cause the already stupid to become even dumber.
@@RyanWimmer If you’d listened to Michelle and Whitneys work you wouldn’t be so misinformed.
@@Hmcc0712 lol, oh I’ve listened. It’s both aggravating and psychologically fascinating. Michelle Stone is incapable of making a well reasoned coherent argument. She absolutely can’t make an argument without unjustified presuppositions, her methodology is completely based on motivated reasoning. At times she seems completely unaware of how irrational her methodology is. She makes the absolute stupidest arguments with a straight face giving the idea she has zero self awareness. But on the other hand she refuses to leave the amateur stage of RUclips and enter the professional arena of publishing and peer review which means she might be aware of the uncontrollable rolling laughter an editorial board would have when she tries making an argument based on unjustified presuppositions. It is interesting.
@@RyanWimmer Oh, I’m glad I gave you the chance to explain so now I know you’re completely unaware what you’re talking about
Regardless of your view, all must take note of the widespread movement within Mormonism of members questioning the historical narratives. The new perspectives on our leaders, the scrutiny on the “corporate church,” and the new views being shared. Quite interesting.
The new movement is merely a cult within a cult. Happens all the time. Qanon in maga is another example.
Very interesting. I think 2020 shattered a lot of people’s beliefs in structures and bureaucracies. And access to information is at an all time high and it doesn’t always (or ever) sustain the narrative they grew up with.
It seems that if it was honest, the first slide where Bowman lists "Polygamy Deniers" should include Joseph Smith Jr., Hyrum Smith and Emma Smith if he wants to be inclusive.
I think an important thing to point out with historians is that the debate is not whether or not there was a conspiracy. Either there was a conspiracy headed by Joseph Smith with his council of 50, or there was a different conspiracy headed by Brigham Young. But there absolutely was a conspiracy. Every historian researching this is a conspiracy theorist.
HUGE POINT! Thank you
No, these are apples and oranges. “Well you are too” is one of Michelle’s many idiotic arguments. That Joseph was secretly practicing polygamy and lied about it isn’t that big of a conspiracy. It’s really simple, now apply Occam’s Razor:
Some early conspirators spread rumors of polygamy which led to the 1835 revelation on marriage.
Late 1830s Oliver Cowdrey and others join a conspiracy to accuse Smith of adultery.
John C Bennet then exposes Smith as a polygamist as an independent conspirator not related to Cowdrey’s conspiracy.
Then William and Wilson Law join in a separate conspiracy in exposing Smith with the Nauvoo Expositor, a new conspiracy not related to either Cowdrey or Bennet.
William Clayton independently records sealing to Lucy Walker as an independent conspirator.
Willard Richards ads in sealings as an independent conspirator
Now Young joins the conspiracy and rewrites a bunch of history and plants evidence. And everyone’s favorite, he used a Smith impersonator 😂😂😂
William Marks claims Joseph was going to end polygamy, not that credible since every other close associate in the twelve do not say he was going to end polygamy. He was an ignorant conspirator. Michelle has that covered, in her episode 52 she reveled that Marks was too stupid to understand what Smith really meant, but Michelle’s psychic powers understands better 😂😂😂
Years later the affidavits are written by over two dozen women as part of a conspiracy.
Then the women independently conspire in writing auto-biographies and personal correspondence never meant for public consumption.
What is most likely? A series of convoluted and independent conspiracies? That 50+ people conspired and often independently conspired? Or that Joseph Smith, a guy who said he could see buried treasure with a magical rock, was lying along with his wife and brother? You cannot honestly using logic and reasoning call these two equal conspiracy theories.
Right?? Great point, Westivus - and the hilarious thing is Brian Hales and Todd Compton both talk about Joseph’s “polygamy inner circle” and who was and wasn’t in it…and then call others conspiracy theorists. It’s extraordinary.
@@CleanUpCongress there is quite a a difference. It is idiotic to compare. The logic/polygamy deniers believe multiple independent and multi faceted conspiracies. There was the rumor of polygamy that gave rise to the 1835 statement on marriage. Cowdrey accused Joseph of adultery. John C. Bennett exposed Smith. The Laws exposed Smith. After this consistent theme of unrelated people exposing Smith for different and unrelated reasons then Young and all the apostles confirmed Smith practices. William Marks who joined the RLDS also confirmed Smith’s practice. Then 30+ women write out the affidavits. Then women included their marriages to Smith in their autobiographies and talked about in personal correspondence. So about eight different multifaceted conspiracies involving 50+ people vs Smith having an inner circle of a few trusted men and Smith lying along with a couple others lying isn’t even close to the same. Apply some good logic, reading and Occam’s Razor
"A romanticized view of the nuclear family". To me that says it all. "When they are learned, they think they are wise." He is using manipulative speech. It's a ploy used in academia. How can he explain Brigham Young's awful attitude toward women? Journal of Discourses Vol 9 p31-40 is an excellent example of how Young manipulated his audience with flattery. Then he brings in instruction addressing the brethren, to get their attention. More flattery. Then when he has them where he wants them, he uses shaming and belittling. Page 36 "I will now speak a little in regard to people's making themselves happy....if there is a comfort, a felicity, and a good feeling, I want to say a few words about them ...and that is the plurality of women.... I am almost daily sealing YOUNG GIRLS to MEN OF AGE AND EXPERIENCE. Love your duties sisters." He goes on with more manipulative word play. I bring this up because this Phd is doing the same thing. A Phd is meaningless. As you pointed out his is in error. He hides behind his Phd label as a shield. I hope he comes to realize we can see right through it.
Love this comment! Thank you for these excellent insights!
I love how they like to draw on the caricatured idea of the 1950s when if you know your polygamy history, you know that this effort to purge the Church of polygamy and recreate an idealized monogamy goes clear back to 1933 when they released the Third Manifesto to redefine celestial marriage. This was 20 years before Ozzie and Harriet. Just goes to show that the research is sloppy.
Also note that Law and the Expositor NEVER leaked Joseph as a polygamist; it only leaked Joseph as a receiver of a revelation on polygamy (which of course is disputed). But, still, it is significant that the Expositor makes no accusation that Joseph himself had multiple wives or was practicing polygamy.
It described "Whoredoms"
LOL. The "Expositor" publishers were well aware of Joseph's polygamy practice.
On February 7, 1844, Wilson Law published a satirical poem titled "Buckeye's Lament for Want of More Wives," which detailed Joseph's spiritual wifery practice in detail and named some of his plural wives.
On May 13, 1844, William Law wrote in his diary that Joseph "had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman".
William Law filed legal charges against Smith of "living in an open state of adultery with Maria Lawrence" on May 23, 1844.
The "Expositor" text states: "We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles;"
Also: "It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place?- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that Brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father of mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God.--They are visited again, and what is the result? They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front--Positively NO Admittance. The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable; but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God, When in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph's) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently,and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings form the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it-but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder-struck, faints recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects."
End quotes. It's a sad fact that the people who assert that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy are among the the least informed on the actual facts of the issue.
" Law and the Expositor NEVER leaked Joseph as a polygamist; it only leaked Joseph as a receiver of a revelation on polygamy (which of course is disputed)."
LOL. That is only "disputed" by people who worship Joseph Smith and refuse to believe that he was a liar, a hypocrite, and an adulterer.
The first report of Joseph Smith's "spiritual wifery" practice was published on July 13, 1842, by 17 year old Martha Brotherton. She related Joseph's and Brigham Young's attempt to pressure her into plural marrying Young:
"brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come, and brother Joseph will marry us here to-day, and you can go home this evening, and your parents will not know any thing about it."
Note that the verbiage Martha recounted is similar to that in the "revelation on celestial marriage", which Joseph formally dictated to William Clayton a year later. The fact that Martha, as well as numerous other people, cited/quoted similar verbiage which Joseph had used when presenting the plural marriage doctrine to them, proves that the concepts came from Joseph Smith.
Hyrum Smith presented the "revelation on celestial marriage" to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843, to seek their vote to sustain it as church doctrine. Six men who were in that meeting filed legal affidavits stating that the document which Hyrum Smith read is the same text as D&C 132 today. Austin Cowles, one of those men, filed his affidavit to that effect on May 4, 1844. Cowles opposed Hyrum's proposal, and he joined with William Law and other dissenters to publish the "Expositor." Law added his own affidavit to Cowles':
"I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.-And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines."
If Joseph and Hyrum Smith had not been preaching and practicing plural marriage, Law and Cowles & Co. would not, nor could not, have filed those affidavits, or bothered to publish the "Expositor." And Joseph would have had no reason to order their printing press destroyed.
So the only people who "dispute" that the document originated from Joseph Smith are those who are in intellectual or emotional denial of historical facts.
@@randyjordan5521 Facts matter
@randyjordan5521, we have been over these points on these forums over and over as nauseum.
My point was merely that the “affidavits” in the Expositor say nothing about JS practicing polygamy.
As for your other points, both Buckey’s Lamentation and the Martha Brotherton affidavit come through John Bennett, with no original. The so-called William Law journal has been debunked - nobody has ever seen it; all we have is a typed copy that arose circa 1984 that is just a few pages and only covers the dates leading up to and including the martyrdom. Every piece of evidence that I’ve ever seen has some problem or another, and THAT is why I dispute our currently accepted narrative, not because I need JS to be “perfect.”
It’s not a true science if it isn’t peer reviewed. LDS church treats their historians as if they’ve been peer reviewed but that is not the case.
Who specifically hasn’t been peer reviewed?
Peer review isn’t the science standard. Peer review is simply having an expert look for obvious errors
@@whatsup3270 Peer review has long been established as the gold standard for scientific publishing.
@@whatsup3270 Peer review has long been the gold standard for scientific publications.
Cheryl, Even though I disagree with you on this subject, I respect you for your willingness to respectfully engage. Do you think the Church should release William Clayton's diaries? Do you think it will shed light on this contenteous subject one way or the other?
OMG. The portions of Clayton's journals which deal with the Nauvoo period were published in 1979. Historian Andrew Ehat was given permission to research Clayton's journals in church archives. He transcribed them, and someone leaked them to Jerald Tanner, and the Tanners published them. They have been on the internet for as long as I've had internet service, which was 1996.
There are no unpublished portions of Clayton's journals which could shed more light on the beginnings of plural marriage or somehow magically overturn the fact that Joseph Smith originated plural marriage and dictated the "revelation" to Clayton.
@@randyjordan5521which website contains Clayton's journals
Absolutely. I'm looking forward to the release of the Clayton diaries, and it can't come too soon for me. Although I believe that we have had access to transcripts of all pertinent portions for many years, it will be important to examine the diary itself, or at least scans of it, to check its contemporary nature and other items.
@@cherylbruno5368 I don't know what further information there would be in any unpublished portions of Clayton's diaries that would tell us any more about Joseph Smith's involvement in polygamy than the portions that were published in 1979. The parts that have been on-line document Clayton's day-to-day dealings with Joseph.
Much of what Clayton wrote is corroborated by other contemporary sources. For instance, Joseph H. Jackson's June 1844 memoir mentions Clayton: "He has lived with his wife and wife's sister in common for the last year, and has children by both of them." That corroborates Clayton's journal entries which document Joseph Smith performing his plural marriage to his wife's sister, Margaret Moon.
"On the 27th of April, 1843, the Prophet Joseph Smith married to me
Margaret Moon, for time and eternity, at the residence of Elder Heber C.
Kimball
In April, 1843, he /Joseph Smith/ sealed to me my second wife, my
first wife being then living."
Clayton also noted the birth of his son by Margaret:
"18 February 1844, Sunday
Sunday 18th. About 12 A.M. M began to be sick and continued to grow worse
until 5 o clock when she was delivered of a son. She did remarkably well for
which I thank my heavenly father. Mother attended her. I was at home all day.
M. seems to do very well"
Joseph H. Jackson could not possibly have known about Clayton's plural marriage situation if he had not witnessed it personally. Therefore, that confirms the veracity of Clayton's diary, and completely blows apart the theory that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy.
@@randyjordan5521link?
Polygamy deniers are more ancient than modern. It wasn’t just Joseph and Hyrum, but Emma, Lucy, and the prophet Jacob (who was quoting the Lord in his book), too.
YES. I am proudly a polygamy denier alongside Christ.
I’m confused why the Book of Mormon is still not the most correct book among Mormons??
Except Christ was not a polygyny denier. Yikes.
Vague comment, can you help me understand?
Note: Michelle and Denver (since he was discussed in this podcast) have given strong reasons why their stance is more valid and persuasive than the traditional church narrative.
Is your comment going to be a more persuasive rebuttal than what they’ve already discussed? Please share.
Genuine question because I’d be interested in learning something new.
@@MichaelEllisYT How?
@@jeffreyrichardson_My perspective is based on Bible as the standard for God word. In summary, Jesus in the new testament 100% supported and obeyed the Torah Law. Therefore Jesus also supports the pro-polygyny sections of Torah. The idea that Jesus created a new standard of monogamy is just not found anywhere in the text.
@@TheOGProtestantMormon I gave a quick explanation in my response to Jeffrey Richardson.
I would be very leery of going in the direction of peer review. What makes your research so refreshing and compelling is the very reason that it is NOT filtered through the consensus mill.
@@onesmalllight2 : Scholarly peer review doesn't attempt to filter evidence through consensus. Scholarly peer review doesn't judge or condemn a finding. It merely examines methods through reasonable impartial review.
Emotionally laden discourses in the podcast-era isn't a respectable debate. If authentic research was yielded, what's the fear in unveiling it through scholastic academic publishing?
It’s church historians like this guy.. who truly have hearts of intentionally lying.. be fully aware of his intentions to deceive the saints… how can anyone with intentions to deceive claim to be a follower of God… ??
Joseph Smith intentionally decided his entire life for what he thought was the cause of god.
That’s a great idea, Cheryl! I can see the use of this method spread to historical topics outside of Mormon polygamy if this goes well. Perhaps even extend to various other fields of study. In the long term, I can see this aiding in preventing the spread of false information, which seems to be rampant these days among all subject matters. I commend you for this innovative idea.
I might say something ignorant about the peer review process here, since I dont know all the ins and outs, but I can imagine how this would go if podcasts were to be peer-reviewed by church historians. Brian would come on and talk about how the "but one" clause in the original revelation on marriage would trump everything that is in that scripture, or that was taught by Joseph Smith, ever. And then they would refer to their own publications as proof against all the historical records that have been dug up that don't fit the standard narrative.
It's like the idea that we are supposed to pray about everything for confirmation that it is true. But only for confirmation. Pray to know that what the prophet said is true. If you get the answer that it's not then you aren't credentialed. Now we can have motivated church historians use their "authority" to say that our research isn't true because they will only hold it up against the published church narrative. If it doesn't match then you are just an amatuer conspiracy theorist appstate cult following deceived self published nobody.
#fwelingskeptical
Church historians have a history of editing church history. Does anyone remember the 1980s for example? The church has sanitized our history also.
What happened in the 80s with editing church history?
@@Washingtontree The church spent a fortune on forged documents. Mark W Hofman. He ended up killing himself accidentally during an attempted bombing. I was a new member at the time. That's one of the reasons why I hold fast to my testimony of the Book of Mormon and to the teachings of Joseph Smith.
There is a mountain of evidence which proves that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy that was published during his lifetime, and thus was not edited or altered by the church.
@@Washingtontree For one thing the mark of Cain changed, as did all BoM passages related to that.
Ahh, yes. The era of Boyd K. Packer's war against Mormon historians. I'm convinced that the only reason Michelle is still in the church is because he is no longer alive.
Michelle, Cheryl is your best guest ( I loved the Masonry episode).
And her position is the exact same as mine: Skeptical of polygamy. Accept that Joseph practiced it.
That’s where I was at for a while but when I talked to historians, they never gave me enough evidence to convict Joseph. Every piece of evidence historians presented is trash. It’s all twisted and circumstantial. When they can produce legitimate evidence then I can move on. Until then, innocent until proven guilty
I can't stand the word "narrative". Just means, which false idea do we want to believe?
The problem is with the structure of Academia. It is a profession, they are paid to shuffle around old bones. There needs to be conflict of interest disclosures of all the professional thinkers. Unfortunately, the Church leadership and their massive support staff are all employees now. Follow the money.
Excellent podcast, as usual, Michelle.
I do have some pushback on a few points.
1. You keep on mentioning that Bowman and Park's behavior is potentially damaging their credibility.
I totally disagree.
By its very nature, the idea of one having credibility requires that a group of people give that person his/her credibility. In the case of these academics, the only credibility they care about is that which is given them by their vaunted institutions and "esteemed" colleagues. Nothing they've said will damage their credibility in the eyes of these people or the centers of power that credentialize them.
Quite the opposite. By "circling the wagons" with these kinds of dismissive, arrogant pieces they've published, they're seen (again, by those whose opinion they care about) as defending the truth.
2. While I totally get your desire to publish academically reviewed papers in the future, I also think that's the wrong move. That will not bring more people to the truth. It will seemingly get you and your arguments more credibility and visibility, though you will struggle to break into that world at all, regardless of the strength of your arguments or the rigor with which you present them. The bottom line is you're not in the club and you never will be because you don't "follow the rules".
3. I also think the "peer review" podcast idea isn't going to work. Certainly no harm in doing it, but it's not going to suddenly turn what is, by it's very nature, an anti-establishment movement, into a mainstream, establishment-approved enterprise. That's the whole idea of peer review--to add the imprimatur of establishment authority to a given work. The work of Christianity, as Connor Boyack astutely points out in his "Christ Versus Caesar" book is anti-establishment.
Without getting into it, the people who would approve of the "peer review" process are not independent-thinking people. They're just not. They're consensus-driven people whose worse nightmare is to be classified with the "hoi polloi" which in our day is analogous to the labels of "conspiracy theorist", "right wing", etc. These people's worst nightmare is that something might think they're a Republican or, even worse, a Trump supporter.
Anyway, getting a little carried away.
My whole point here, in short, is that you should keep on doing what you're doing. You're doing God's work on this podcast. Keep on doing it. Don't change. Don't try to get in people's good graces. Keep on being you!
comment. . . Has Cheryl addressed Michelle's historical concerns regarding polygamy? If so, how does she still feel the predominant narrative is "compelling" and has "convinced" her?
Historians are very busy people and it's a matter of choosing where to spend one's time the most effectively.
I can definitely sympathize with that. I have the exact same problem. However, if a historian is going to take time to speak to a topic -- writing articles, creating videos, giving extensive interviews about it, should we not expect them to put forward the time to try to gain some basic understanding of that topic? Does having a PhD give you permission to speak authoritatively about things that you haven't actually taken the time to understand?
If they don't have time to learn about it, then they shouldn't address it. If they address it, then I believe they are obligated to gain some actual understanding, and participate in some genuine engagement.
@danvogel6802 you seem to have time to watch and comment on many of Michelle's episodes. Why don't you appear on one and tell her (and the rest of us) where she is wrong?
I would think that this trend of people believing us "polygamy deniers" over the credentialed would be a bit of a motivator.
@@PeterBrownscouts blind followers isn’t much to brag about. That’s not how history books are changed.
@@RyanWimmer Correct history books are usually changed by those who have power.
Sources have been democratized, but methodology hasn't. The only way to move new interpretations from the fringe to the mainstream is through good methodology. Polygamy skeptics aren't heard because they are speaking a different language, playing a different game, making a lot of mistakes.
I'm always open to correction. I will continue to invite you to show me things you think I am getting or doing wrong.
It seems you are claiming the historians are using good methodology and aren't making mistakes on this topic. I very strongly disagree.
@@MichelleBStone I’ve pointed out problems in your methodology multiple times but you choose to ignore it. In the episode you claim to understand Smith’s words to Marks better than Marks was outrageous. Your only argument for it was a presupposition that Smith and Marks are honest. Such methodology is good for faith beliefs but not scholarship. I’d love to see you try to publish your arguments in that episode.
@@MichelleBStone your episode on birth control was full of presuppositions. You assume Joseph wouldn’t do the pull out method, which is 96% effective if done correctly, because of the Old Testament. You assume Bennett would be willing to do things to prevent pregnancy that Joseph wouldn’t based on your presuppositions about what an upstanding guy old Joe is. You assume the women wouldn’t do certain things for contraceptives. You claim they are lying about being married to Joseph out one side of your mouth and also claim that none said they used methods to avoid pregnancy. Are they liars or not?
I agree that those he brings up in the article are not the main ones. I have been debating those in this movement for many years, and rarely did I hear Denver Snuffer as a source. Yes, the main focus with the Griffins is John Taylor killed Joseph (according to them). They don't believe Joseph Smith practiced polygamy but also don't believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.
In my opinion, here is my list of those at the forefront of this movement.
1. Nephi Explorer (Ryan Fisher)
2. Doctrine of Christ
2. Hemlock Knotts
3. Rob Fotheringham
4. Whitney Honer
5. This channel
I believe all are not just polygamy deniers but against the Temple and ordances. Some have either left the church or have been excommunicated. All teach similar doctrines and ideas.
If a historian is a member of the Church in good standing this line of thinking is scary for them, I'm sure. The rational next step if polygamy wasn't authorized or taught by JSJr is that the LDS church has a very shaky foundation which is why so many people leave the church when they begin to learn about the details about polygamy - whether they believe JSJr did it or did not do it. So, for an LDS historian they likely feel it puts even their testimony at risk to even consider it which is why they don't touch this topic unless it's to dismiss it or superficially discuss it.
I read Lucy Walker’s story one night in the book In Sacred Loneliness. Such a horrific, sad story. I woke up in a panic that night, thinking about how scared and alone she says she was after being threatened by Joseph that she and her family would lose their salvation if she rejected his offer to be his polygamous wife. Such a young girl and so alone in her fear and confusion. She says she wished for her dead mother to come comfort her. She talks about wishing she could die rather than face what he was telling her she had to do. Is it your opinion that Lucy just made this story up? Have you talked about her in any of your episodes?
My belief is that Joseph lost it near the end of his life, because his behavior is highly eradic compared to earlier in his life. I think it is polygamy that got him murdered. Now... there is evidence that Joseph did not have Emma sealed to him. I think a lot of the problems with polygamy can be left right at the feet of Brigham, and I truly think that Brigham had a hand in Joseph's death. I think Joseph had a huge problem in eradic sexual overtones/behavior and this single thing is why he suffered more because of... than anything else.
What is the LDS Church's motivation for admitting that Joseph WAS a polygamist? What's in it for them after denying it for so long?
The Utah church never denied that Smith practiced polygamy. They just downplayed the down and dirty details of it. The church has depicted Smith as a "reluctant polygamist" who declined to obey the revelation until God sent an angel with a drawn sword to threaten to kill him if he didn't screw other women. The church also falsely led their members to believe that Smith only plural married a few old spinster women or widows "for eternity."
But after so much information had been published on the details of his practice over the last few decades, the church was forced to admit to the truth in essays which were published on their website. Those essays are the reason why Michelle Stone and her fellow travelers refuse to believe that Joseph started polygamy: they know that admitting that is also an admission that he was a liar, a hypocrite, and an adulterer. So Michelle & Co. have gone into intellectual and emotional denial of the facts.
That's a hell of a way to live a life.
@@randyjordan5521 Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug. She seems really triggered to find out her hero was no better than Brigham.
Wow. Did you even listen to this episode? There you are claiming to know anything about why Michelle and others in her camp believe the way they believe and getting it completely wrong, commenting about it on the episode where she talks about how ridiculous it is that a historian wrote a newspaper article with his incorrect guess at why Michelle and people in her camp believe what they believe. Lol.
@@melanieposton4560 I have listened to hundreds of hours of Michelle whining about why her church is clearly lying to her about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Have you even read the gospel topics essay and all of the footnotes regarding polygamy in Nauvoo . I am a never Mormon and I know more about your church than 95% of the members Trust me on this one
@@melanieposton4560 I, for one, know exactly why Michelle believes the way she does: She worships Joseph Smith, therefore she refuses to believe that he was a liar, an adulterer, and a hypocrite. So Michelle ignores the mountain of evidence that refutes her beliefs.
comI'm confused. If Cheryl finds the traditional narrative convincing, why does she assert that she does not think we know why Joseph started polygamy? I thought the traditional narrative was clear: he started it because he was commanded and even forced with a sword to do so by God Himself. Cheryl, if you are still convinced by that narrative, why would you question why he started Polygamy? Also, if you don't know why he started Polygmay, are you beginning to doubt that God commanded him to do it, and if so, what does that say about Josepg as a Prophet? If Joseph started Polygamy, but you don't know why, how can you uphold Josepg as a Prophet, since if he did something not Divinely commanded how was he acting as a Prophet? Also, what does that say about Brfgham Young as his successor and someone who represented God, even if you accept that Brigham only represented God as a minister but not a Prophet? Cheryl, are you not logically inconsistent if you criticize others for not addressing issues head-on if you yourself are not doing that yourself? I would like to see, you, Cheryl, answer some of these direct questions about your engaging yet not totally being logically consistent. Cheryl, if you are saying you are unsure right now if you have all the answers, that is fair. I'm just trying to get a really good radar fix on where you are. I certainly pray Cheryl that God will continue to direct your heart. If I am overly presumptive or critical in my questions let me know gently, but know that I am asking with a honest desire to understand where you are at and to be sure that you have completely thought through or at least are trying to think through what you are doing as you engage with these issues. Michelle, you are not just a nobody just because you don't have credentials. Jesus and Paul had no human credentials, although paul was trained in the Jewish tradition, but that's not what he ended up promoting, at least not as the people who trained him believed he should have, and I don't think Joseph or any of the actual Prophets have encouraged us to trust people because of credentials. I think that is where the Community of Christ went off the rails. They wanted to be recognized by the world, so they started promoting ministry with credentials, as versus ministry by Divine callings.
Where motivated reasoning meets peer review
Is the church lying to you about Joseph's polygamy?
Stop using the fallacious term “Joseph Smith’s Poligamy” when no evidence exists to support the slander.
The difference is that Abraham Lincoln scholars are debating. With polygamy it’s not scholars debating. Polygamy deniers completely refuse to actually join the debate in the academic arena, they refuse to publish or even try to. Whether polygamy deniers want to admit the it or not, this is the identical situation with flat earthers and Intelligent Design. One side can only self-publish and make noise online.
You seem to imply flat earth and intelligent design are opposing views. There are over 200 verses in the scriptures that describe the creation and shape of the earth, and not one of them describes it as a spinning ball hurtling through space. The FEers I know all very much believe in intelligent design. I even know some who were atheists before learning what they believe as the truth of where we live. Just an observation.
@@Kristy_not_Kristine i should word it differently. The point is those two groups fighting against regular science can only self publish, just like polygamy deniers.
I’m a “polygamy denier” and that’s not correct.
At what point does Joseph get to speak for himself? If you look at everything Joseph taught *while he was alive* from discourses, letters, and his journal entries you will see he never spoke in favor of polygamy. He ONLY condemned it.
Why will you not believe his words?
The problem with scholars who are more interested in defending their institution than the messenger God sent is they DON’T let Joseph speak for himself.
@jeffreyrichardson_ BINGO 💥
No one wanted to hear what Joseph had to say when he was alive and they still don't want to know what he really said. Reminds me of another who was taken out for his preaching and practices as well(Jesus Christ).Seems we "deniers" are in good company
@@Kristy_not_Kristine Wait---Are you saying that we should rely on Bible verses to know the shape of our earth and the physics of our universe?
The podcast peer review sound great!
@@jacbox3889 her methodology would be rejected regardless of where she is peer reviewed.
57:25 “way more people leave the church over the Joseph Smith polygamy narrative”. Correct me if I’m making too many assumptions here but, could you explain to me how adopting the narrative that Brigham Young was a liar and was not a true prophet and the priesthood keys didn’t pass to him and therefore we don’t have the line of apostolic succession somehow inspires members to remain true to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?😂
History is not a science, so credentials is not a good argument. But good independent historians still publish. They engage the peer review process. A credential is not necessary for publishing. Polygamy deniers do refuse to graduate little league and join the big kids in publishing.
If polygamy deniers want to be taken seriously, they must publish, not self publish. They can disagree with the need to publish, but they will never make a long lasting impact playing on social media.
These Joseph Smith polygamy deniers are really just an echo chamber. Like flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, and believers in other conspiracy theories, all they want is some fellow travelers to engage with to confirm their beliefs.
Most work on polygamy has certainly been self-published in books from Fawn Brodie to Van Wagoner to Quinn. Likewise that's where the skeptical literature has focused. Some have even published through Sunstone. I don't think it's critical that we play in the published journal sandbox. We can convince more people just by self publishing than working through some intersectionally focused history journal. We are also painfully aware how broken and ineffectual peer review is in the social sciences.
It's not because we can't. It's because we most likely don't care. The field is accessible enough for amateurs. It's not rocket science.
@@PeterBrownscouts ok, you seem very clueless on this process let me educate you. First and foremost, not a single author you named was self-published. They had to through a publisher and the peer review process. Especially the publisher Brodie went through as well as Benjamin Park. Hopefully you don’t make that false claim again. History is open to non-academics, but the arena in which you put ideas out there is through the peer review process. You self-proclaim yourself an expert on a RUclips channel forever. You will get uneducated followers, pats on the back, huggie wuggie’s, and all the other attention people that cry and sniffle as much as Michelle Stone does wants. But if you actually want to change a historical narrative and change history books, it will not happen playing in little league on RUclips. Going to have to play in the big leagues. If hugs is what you want, stay in RUclips and be viewed as a clown like Michelle Stone is. Would love to hear where the peer review process is broken, I do know of some places but history is not among them.
@@PeterBrownscouts ok, you seem very clueless on this process let me educate you. First and foremost, not a single author you named was self-published. They had to through a publisher and the peer review process. Especially the publisher Brodie went through as well as Benjamin Park. Hopefully you don’t make that false claim again. History is open to non-academics, but the arena in which you put ideas out there is through the peer review process. You self-proclaim yourself an expert on a RUclips channel forever. You will get uneducated followers, pats on the back, huggie wuggie’s, and all the other attention people that cry and sniffle as much as Michelle Stone does wants. But if you actually want to change a historical narrative and change history books, it will not happen playing in little league on RUclips. Going to have to play in the big leagues. If hugs is what you want, stay in RUclips and be viewed as a clown like Michelle Stone is. Would love to hear where the peer review process is broken, I do know of some places but history is not among them.
@@randyjordan5521 ok, you seem very clueless on this process let me educate you. First and foremost, not a single author you named was self-published. They had to through a publisher and the peer review process. Especially the publisher Brodie went through as well as Benjamin Park. Hopefully you don’t make that false claim again. History is open to non-academics, but the arena in which you put ideas out there is through the peer review process. You self-proclaim yourself an expert on a RUclips channel forever. You will get uneducated followers, pats on the back, huggie wuggie’s, and all the other attention people that cry and sniffle as much as Michelle Stone does wants. But if you actually want to change a historical narrative and change history books, it will not happen playing in little league on RUclips. Going to have to play in the big leagues. If hugs is what you want, stay in RUclips and be viewed as a clown like Michelle Stone is. Would love to hear where the peer review process is broken, I do know of some places but history is not among them.
The peer-reviewed narrative versus the autodidactic narrative?
John Smith (Uncle John), brother of Joseph Smith, Sr., practiced plural marriage and followed Brigham Young and the Saints to Utah.
Joseph Smith's first cousins practiced plural marriages, including George Albert Smith, Silas Smith, and Jesse Nathaniel Smith. Saint George is named after George Albert Smith.
Mary Fielding Smith married Heber C. Kimball, plurally, as she would testify that her husband, Hyrum, married her sister Mercy, in plurality.
How many Smith's and progenitors of Asael Smith need to practice plural marriage? They knew Joseph better than Phil Davis and Michelle Stone could ever claim.
Please show me where Mary Fielding Smith claimed that her husband married Mercy. That's a new one I haven't heard before.
@@TaiHoo-c8h Please provide your sources and citations.
Why is Phil Davis even in this discussion. He thinks he's Joseph Smith reincarnate.
@@MichelleBStone :
· Hyrum Smith married Jerusha Barden in 1826. Born to this union are six children, including John Smith, who would later serve as Patriarch to the Church, while practicing plural marriage in Utah. Hyrum Smith’s son John Smith is not to be confused with “Uncle John”, the brother of Joseph Smith, Sr., who also served as Patriarch to the Church, and practiced plural marriage in Utah.
· Jerusha Barden died in 1837. Hyrum Smith became a widower. I don’t think you need a citation for that.
· Hyrum Smith married Mary Fielding, December 24th, 1837. Born to this union is two more children, including Joseph F. Smith (Sixth President). Mercy Fielding Smith is obviously Mary Fielding’s sister. Mercy is married to Robert B. Thompson. I don’t think you need a citation for this, but here you go anyways:
o Arrington, Madsen, and Jones, Mothers of the Prophets, 96-98; Jeffrey S. O’Driscoll, Hyrum Smith: A Life of Integrity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 163-64.
· Mercy and Robert B. Thompson kept Mary and Hyrum’s children in their home during Hyrum’s incarceration, and in Nauvoo, the two families built homes next to one another. Mercy also nursed Joseph F. Smith when Mary was too sick to do so. Here is the citation:
o Jennifer Reeder, “‘The Blessing of the Lord Has Attended Me’: Mercy Rachel Fielding Thompson (1807-1893),” in Richard E. Turley Jr. and Brittany A. Chapman, eds., Women of Faith in the Latter Days: Volume One, 1775-1820 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 424-25.
· Robert B. Thompson died in 1841. Mercy Fielding Thompson became a widow. Here is the citation:
o (Mercy Fielding Thompson, Robert B. Thompson biography by Mercy R. Thompson, 1854 November, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.)
· Mercy Fielding Thompson and the late Robert B. Thompson were sealed for time and eternity in May, 1843, with Hyrum Smith standing in for Robert B. Thompson. Joseph Smith performed the sealing. Following this ordinance, Hyrum Smith is sealed to Mary Fielding Smith for time and eternity. Mercy’s exuberance knew no bounds. “Some may think I could envy Queen Victoria in some of her glory,” she said. “Not while my name stands first on the list in this Dispensation of women sealed to a Dead Husband through divine Revelation.” Here is the citation:
o Thompson, Reminiscence, 195. Several other couples were married for eternity on this same occasion: Brigham Young and his wife Mary Ann Angell; Brigham Young and his deceased wife, Miriam Works (with Mary Ann Angell acting as proxy); and Willard Richards and his wife, Jennetta Richards. Joseph Smith journal, May 29, 1843, Joseph Smith Collection, Church History Library, Salt Lake City; Lyndon W. Cook, Nauvoo Marriages, Proxy Sealings, 1843-1846 (Provo, UT: Grandin Book, 2004), 5.
· Robert B. Thompson appeared as an angel to Joseph Smith and informs Joseph that he does not want Mercy to be lonely. The angel proposes to Joseph Smith that Hyrum marry Mercy for time, as a plural wife, while Mercy remains sealed to Robert in the eternities. Here is the citation:
o Mercy Fielding Thompson letter to Joseph Smith III, Sept. 5, 1883, Joseph F. Smith Papers 1854-1918, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.
· Joseph Smith committed Mary Fielding Smith to talk to Mercy and introduces the idea of Mercy marrying Hyrum for time. Here is the citation:
o Cook, Nauvoo Marriages, Proxy Sealings, 3. The conversion of Hyrum Smith to plural marriage is in 1843. Andrew F. Ehat, A Holy Order: Joseph Smith, the Temple, and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question (Printed by author, 1990), 28-32; Ruth Vose Sayers, Affidavit, May 1, 1869, Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, 5:9, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.
· Hyrum Smith then spoke to Mercy Thompson on the subject of plural marriage. Here is the citation and testimony of Mercy Fielding with accounts of her sister, Mary:
o Thompson, Mercy Rachel Fielding 1807-1893. Mercy F. Thompson autobiographical sketch, Church History Library, catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=f3e7311c-cd9c-4dea-811e-bdb9d973fa26&crate=0&index=2. Accessed: August 11, 2020.
· Hyrum is sealed to Jerusha for eternity, with Mary Fielding Smith acting as proxy to Jerusha. Hyrum Smith is now sealed to two women for eternity. Hyrum is sealed for time to Mercy in 1843. Here is the citation:
o Newell, Linda King; Valeen Tippetts Avery (1994). Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (2nd ed.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 142. ISBN 0-252-06291-4.
· Joseph and Hyrum Smith are murdered in 1844. Mary Fielding Smith becomes a widow and Mercy Fielding Thompson Smith becomes a widow again.
· Mary Fielding Smith married Elder Heber C. Kimball of the Twelve, plurally for time. She dies in the faith in Utah in 1852. She is one of the first pioneers in the valley and laughs at Cornelius Lott for doubting her. Her grave marker reads “Smith” on it.
· Mercy Fielding Smith marries Elder John Taylor of the Twelve, plurally for time. The two had been friends since their mutual conversion from Methodism, in Toronto, where the Fielding’s had proselytized to John Taylor. She died in the faith in Utah in 1893. Her grave marker bears the name “Thompson” on it. She is buried next to her sister, Mary.
· Catherine Phillips was also sealed to Hyrum Smith for eternity. She never remarried. She died in the faith at 86, in Salt Lake City.
· You have subtlety alluded to the new belief that Heber C. Kimball and John Taylor murdered Hyrum Smith.
· The sealings are recorded.
@@TaiHoo-c8h LOL, I am extremely familiar with all of these claims. Thank you for providing actual citations of the fact that Jerusha and Hyrum were married and had children and that Mary Fielding was his second wife and that they also had children.
The rest of your citations are not helpful at all. They are the amusing late claims of Mercy and others that do not at all stand up at all to scrutiny. Hyrum's supposed polygamy is actually one of the most amusing parts of this entire discussion.
Now, all you need to do is convince the church to take down the Gospel Topics Essay that disagrees with you.
I assume we can agree that the essays won't be up forever. They will change eventually.
@@MichelleBStone this is where your church is so freaking pathetic . There is not a single Doctrine that hasn't changed. You're pathetic church is making things up as it goes along and you are just sacrificing your mental health trying to keep up. If you think you are going to change the church you are woefully mistaken
@@MichelleBStoneThey've changed since I first read them!
@@personofinterest8731 Needless to say they still very clearly say that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy by marrying 14-year-olds and other men's wives. The fact that he had 30-plus wives is unambiguous
@@sdfotodude Yes
The evidence is overwhelming that Joseph Smith II practiced polygamy. And I am willing to look at all the evidence presented by all sources. Evidence is not endless preachings or opinions. The reason the evidence is overwhelming is the independence of sources, and the collateral evidences as Celestial Kingdom, which has no purpose without polygamy.
One fact is, that Joe had taken himself a young girl to wife, and promised his followers that of his lineage there should be a son, who should be to them prophet, priest, and king. Unluckily, however, the priest and king turned out to be a female. But I suppose the faithful will receive her as pythoness and queen, and nursing mother in the church.- Daily Evening Gazette St Louis Wednesday Aug 15, 1838 (Vol. 1)
You do know there is zero DNA evidence linking Joseph Smith to descendants not sired with Emma, right?
Seems to me that Michelle Stone's biggest beef with this Matt Bowman guy is that he didn't list her as one of the major Joseph Smith polygamy denier conspiracy theorists.
Attention seekers typically get upset when they realize they were not as important as they thought
Question:
Isn't it true that God's law requires 2 people be married, preferably sealed, in order to have children?
If so, explain Christ's birth to Mary.
And what will God do with all those children born to the extra wives, married under plural marriage in the temple? Are they sealed or not?
If 132 was wrong, wouldn't generations of members alive today be under condemnation for not being properly sealed under a false law, and the earth be smitten with a curse? Malachi 4:6.
Or did the Lord recognize those sealings???
I've found the answers in Section 132, but if we can ignore scripture and prophets bc it doesn't fit my world view of things, let's just ignore the scriptures and prophets...like what the alphabet crew does with The Family Proclamation.
Make a coherent argument and will not be so easy for me to be arrogant and rude.
No your arguments are not compelling. I've listened to them all. The grand conspiracy is ridiculous .
Listened to them all? You really need a different hobby, since following facts, logic, and evidence is clearly not your strong suit.
@@JakobPGrau Sure pal. I only have numerous publications in scientific journals that have been peer reviewed. How many do you have?
@@JakobPGrau 😂😂😂😂
But we know the conspiracy is true because neither Joseph or Emma would lie. We know that, because, well, we know that.
Peer reviewed by conspiracy theorists? Yeah, that's a hard no. Stick with your Qanon outlets.