Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Polygamy Joseph Smith & Michelle Brady Stone w/ Brian Hales
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 мар 2024
- This week, I welcome Brian Hales to address a growing movement that believes Joseph Smith did not introduce or practice plural marriage. Specifically, he discusses a recent video from Michelle Brady Stone’s (@MichelleBStone ) 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy channel. In our discussion, Hales expresses two concerns. The first asks, “What is the objective, goal, and endgame?” According to Hales, that whatever the desired goal might be, the actual result is "confusion" because Michelle often offers conclusions that contradict teachings from past Church presidents and portrays current apostles as unknowing or out-of-touch. Hales’s second concern involves the difference between transparencyists, who strive to provide manuscript data on a topic with full documentary transparency (letting the audience decide), and propagandists, who only provide selective evidence to persuade audiences to agree with them. Steven Pynakker has been in touch with Michelle and has invited her to come on Mormon Book Reviews to respond and dialogue with Brian about the very important story and history of Mormon polygamy. We hope these conversations will be of great benefit to our audience. Both Brian and Michelle are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
#latterdaysaints #mormonhistory #mormonism #polygamy #josephsmith #brighamyoung #churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints #lds #mormonbookreviews #stevenpynakker
Check out Brian's websites:
josephsmithspo...
mormonpolygamy...
Link to 132 Problems: Revisiting Mormon Polygamy RUclips Channel:
/ @michellebstone
Links to support Mormon Book Reviews:
Venmo Link:
account.venmo....
PayPal Link:
www.paypal.com...
Patreon Link:
/ mormonbookreviews
Channel Merch Store:
www.mormonbook...
Thank you for putting this interview and comments back up.
I don't personally know Michelle and am new to her work, but I respect that she seems to approach her understanding of scripture through personal prayer and study of the Bible and Book of Mormon, rather than relying on her church's leadership to tell her what God wants her to do and believe. Doesn't God desire a direct, personal relationship with each of us individually, rather than for our understanding of and relationship with Him to be facilitated by other people?
I've listened to 104 of Michelle's episodes, and I listened to yesterday's conversation with Brian, and to your post here. Here are a few points I'd like to make:
1. It's very obvious that Brian hasn't engaged with Michelle's content since his last podcast with her. It's easy for Brian to believe that Michelle leans towards "propagandist" and he is the "transparencist" when he knows little about her content besides the fact that she disagrees with the widely accepted telling of our history.
2. Brian would probably not be a good candidate for a debate with Michelle, nor would Don Bradley, because neither has considered her research. You would need to find someone who has listened, and still feels the facts don't point toward her conclusions, and also have their own hypothesis.
3. Any LDS who engages with the possibility that "God never commanded polygamy" is vulnerable to church discipline. For Brian to put us on trial and fully dismiss 300 hrs of presentation he hasn’t considered was just very ironic and mocking.
Subscribers feel like this matters enough to risk our membership, culture, & children's futures in the church, ...and let’s remember the church believes they can take away our ability to be in heaven with God. Members who only partially believe are called apostate. Brian's uppity judgement and flippant treatment was upsetting. Someone else holds my membership in their hands. I pray my leaders will be nothing like Brian.
4. God has led me to see that He was not the author of D&C 132, years before Michelle’s podcast. He taught me through scripture. Studying Eternal Life left no room for 132 to be remotely possible. I love God more than ever, I rejoice over His plan to bring us back into His presence. I’m sure this wouldn’t even occur to Brian. He wouldn’t believe it’s possible for someone’s testimony to fluorish while also realizing the church has big problems.
5.Brian’s two attacks on her work were insanely sloppy. Her saying “magically” is something she is summarizing, and anyone acquainted with the several hours long episodes knows the research behind her summarizing with “magically”.
It reminds me of a BOM scripture,
“take the advantage of one because of [her] words,”
Both of his points were so lazy and sloppy. Michelle has put multiple episodes into both points, and he doesn’t look at any of her points. What a way to treat someone else’s scholarship.
6. I think you and your platform were used yesterday, Steve. Sure, Brian's a nice guy, and he's done good things, but he is talking like he's an authority when he used your podcast to say in multiple ways, “You’ll find nothing of value by listening to Michelle.” That’s not how debate works. You platformed a smear campaign. I’m very sure that wasn’t your intent, but it certainly was Brian’s.
I disagree with your statement that "Brian's a nice guy" Nice guys don't do smear campaigns or push to get people excommunicated just for having an opposing view, especially when that view is backed by scripture and facts. Brian is no transparencist but he is a very skilled propagandist
@@nostoppingit7243Exactly. So much projection. Why couldn’t he focus on her research and evidence? Just as hominem attacks. What do we expect from someone on his third wife though? He has skin in the game now.
I agree 100! Have you seen Michelle’s reaction video yet? The whole situation is so much more diabolical. Shame on these two for what they did to her.
Excellent comment
"God has led me to see that He was not the author of D&C 132, years before Michelle’s podcast. He taught me through scripture. Studying Eternal Life left no room for 132 to be remotely possible."
Sounds to me like your best course is to resign from the LDS church, seeing as how you don't agree with their canonized scripture.
"Brian’s two attacks on her work were insanely sloppy. Her saying “magically” is something she is summarizing, and anyone acquainted with the several hours long episodes knows the research behind her summarizing with “magically”.
I perked up when Michelle said that nobody had ever heard of D&C 132 for eight years, and then Brigham "magically" pulled it out of his desk drawer in 1852. That is false. A young English convert named Martha Brotherton, who had just arrived in Nauvoo, stated that Joseph Smith and Brigham tried to pressure her into plural marrying Brigham. She left Nauvoo and told her experience to the press in July 1842, which included this:
"… brother Joseph has had a revelation from God [not yet written down] 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"
Also, several high-ranking church leaders who opposed Smith's polygamy doctrine, including his counselor in the church presidency William Law and Nauvoo Stake High Councilor Austin Cowles, swore legal affidavits stating that Joseph and/or Hyrum Smith had presented the "revelation on celestial marriage" as early as August 1843. Law's May 4, 1844 statement included this:
"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."
Cowles' affidavit stated this:
"In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah."
After the Smiths' deaths, five other men who had been present in that August 12, 1843 High Council meeting also swore affidavits that the document which Hyrum Smith had read is the same as D&C 132 today. So Michelle is off-base in asserting that no one had ever heard of the document before Brigham produced it in 1852. When Brigham produced it, that was merely the first time that any church leader publically admitted to the polygamy practice, and brought out the actual document after having denied it for years.
Michelle wants very much to believe that Joseph and Hyrum had nothing to do with polygamy, so she ignores contemporary historical documentation like this which contradicts her chosen belief.
The science is settled. We already know all we need to know. That’s what I’m hearing... No one else should do anymore thinking or digging anymore? Or is it only ok for certain people to continue research on the issue, just not Michelle?
Good point, but we shouldn't ignore data already uncovered including so many eyewitness accounts.
Michelle has the right to do all the research she wants to, but when she refuses to accept evidence which contradicts her chosen position, she loses all credibility as a researcher. Every legitimate Mormon historian accepts that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy. Nothing that Michelle can "research" or say on her RUclips channel will ever magically change the facts of history.
Of course everyone is free to do research, but if you still hold incorrect views after you've done that research, that means that you really didn't do the research in order to learn truth; you did it in order to maintain your chosen position.
To use an analogy, Michelle is like these flat earth believers. No matter how many logical, scientific facts you show them which proves a round earth, their brains always have to wind up at the end still believing in flat earth.
We don’t need those who came after Joesph Smith telling us it is doctrine, we need to see and hear what Joseph actually said. And Brian can’t give us that. Because Joseph never taught of practiced it.
Michelle said it best in her response when she described Brian’s approach to polygamy. He has a narrative he bends the history to match instead of history allowing itself to tell us what happened. Joseph telling the world multiple times he didn’t practice polygamy needs to be dealt with on an ethical level. Even more so is the letter sent to England telling new converts and the English that polygamy wasn’t a doctrine the church preached. It’s tragic to think so many young women crossed the Atlantic, gave men all thrir money, crossed a desert only to find POLYGAMY????!!!! They had no choice but to stay and live it. Those who had the means and the courage left SLC but even they had to do it in the dark of the night.
Wow, what you said about Joseph Smith telling the world… And the duped young women that ultimately made it to Salt Lake only to find out that they did indeed practice plural marriage...etc :
Amen to that, and so well said . that's the damming part of the story!
New converts are still being duped. Who is telling them the truth about polygamy before they get baptised?
@@lisadavis9081 great point
What is interesting and never brought up is the fact that despite Brigham and his clan preaching that polygamy was essential for salvation only 20% of the members, in UTAH, practiced it. Clearly the rest knew it was wrong, not of God, not from Joseph, which would explain why Brigham resorted to making up such outlandish stories to convince them otherwise.
"Michelle said it best in her response when she described Brian’s approach to polygamy. He has a narrative he bends the history to match instead of history allowing itself to tell us what happened."
Actually, you've got things backwards. Brian is correct on the history. Michelle is the one who twists it or refuses to accept the parts that contradict her chosen beliefs. You also wrote:
"Joseph telling the world multiple times he didn’t practice polygamy needs to be dealt with on an ethical level."
Obviously, Joseph lied about practicing polygamy because it was against the laws of the land and the published rules of the church. William Law, who had been Joseph's counselor in the church presidency, and split with him because of polygamy, related Joseph's rationalization for polygamy in an interview years later:
“What do you know about the revelation on polygamy?”
“The way I heard of it was that Hyrum gave it to me to read. I was never in a High Council where it was read, all stories to the contrary notwithstanding. Hyrum gave it to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it and then be careful with it and bring it back again. I took it home, and read it and showed it to my wife. She and I were just turned upside down by it; we did not know what to do. I said to my wife, that I would take it over to Joseph and ask him about it. I did not believe that he would acknowledge it, and I said so to my wife. But she was not of my opinion. She felt perfectly sure that he would father it. When I came to Joseph and showed him the paper, he said: ‘Yes, that is a genuine revelation.’ I said to the prophet: ‘But in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants there is a revelation just the contrary of this.’ ‘Oh,’ said Joseph, ‘that was given
when the church was in its infancy, then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is necessary to give them strong meat’ We talked a long time about it, finally our discussion became very hot and we gave it up. From that time on the breach between us became more open and more decided every day, after having been prepared for a long time. But the revelation gave the finishing touch to my doubts and showed me clearly that he was a rascal."
End quote. I'm sure you're aware of the Mormon practice of teaching "milk before meat." This quote shows that that principle was taught by Joseph Smith in 1843. You also wrote:
"Even more so is the letter sent to England telling new converts and the English that polygamy wasn’t a doctrine the church preached. It’s tragic to think so many young women crossed the Atlantic, gave men all thrir money, crossed a desert only to find POLYGAMY????!!!!"
It was horrible, but it's relevant to know that that practice began in Nauvoo with Joseph Smith. The first known incident involved a teenage girl named Martha Brotherton, who was an English convert who had just arrived in Nauvoo in early 1842. She swore a legal affidavit stating that Brigham Young, in Joseph Smith's store, told her about plural marriage and tried to pressure her into plural marrying him. Young called Joseph in to the room to double up on the intimidation. Martha was of course horrified and quickly left, but she soon left Nauvoo and told her story to the press. Interestingly, Martha's older sister Elizabeth accepted the principle and plural married apostle Parley P. Pratt in 1844.
As you note, after Smith's death and the Mormons settled in Utah, his successors went on missions to Europe and brought back unsuspecting female converts, and then indoctrinated them into polygamy after they got to Utah, where it was difficult to leave. From 1844 to 1852, church leaders steadfastly lied to converts about polygamy, and tried to quash rumors of the practice. As a result, when the leaders did a 180 and admitted it in 1852, some 1700 European members left the church instead of going to Utah.
This whole culture of lying and denying polygamy that went on from about 1835 to 1852 is one of the most shameful periods in Mormon history.
Steven you likely know a lot of people unfamiliar with Mormonism. Ask a bunch of people to read Jacob Chapter 2 and read the old D&C 101 and ask them if they think the chapters are for or against polygamy..ask them if they see an allowance for men to marry multiple wives in either of those chapters. I have yet to find anyone not conditioned by the LDS church to interpret those (well the church doesn't tell members about 101 anymore) as allowing polygamy.
Amen! Reading through the Book of Mormon again and what do we find in the first chapters of 1 Nephi? A theme? What is the theme?
“And now I would that ye might know that after my father Lehi had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone, but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise”
Steve, I appreciate you giving a platform to opposing voices. I’m glad this video was reinstated and I look forward to Michelle’s response. Two things I find troubling:
Brian is loyal to church leaders first and truth second. He has helped craft the narrative and I’m not confident that he would dare go against that narrative even if he did discover information that challenged his previous conclusion.
I don’t see how he doesn’t understand her motive or her end game. She has made this clear multiple times. She’s after truth and she believes she’s found it. Difference is, she’s not afraid of being wrong and she doesn’t fear the power of man.
Michelle can believe that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy if she wants to. However, that does not mean that she's correct on the facts. The church accepts the clear historical record which shows that Smith started and practiced polygamy, and that is why they keep Section 132 in the D&C. So if Michelle refuses to accept the historical evidence, she is free to resign from the Utah church and join the anti-polygamy RLDS, or reject Mormonism entirely. The church has no obligation to reject historical facts just because Michelle doesn't like them.
@@randyjordan5521 You clearly aren't a member or a believer so I am not sure why you put so much weight on what the church's stance is. Interesting how you believe the one thing they speak truth on is the one thing you want to believe is true. The church does have an obligation to speak truth and doing so would require them to reject the lies, rumor and hearsay perpetuated by a group of polygamist who were desperate to protect their families and their way of life. Just as the church has denounced and distanced itself from the other false doctrines Brigham taught, they should do the same with his false doctrine and fake revelation of polygamy.
Brian, just because church leaders believe and teach something for decades does not make it true. The 1940s First Presidency said:
“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel…
We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.” (First Presidency letter to Lowry Nelson,1947 July 17. Special Collections & Archives Merrill-Cazier Library Utah State University)
There have been many things taught by past prophets that were later denounced as false doctrine by subsequent leaders.
YES! Including the false doctrines taught by Brigham Young which includes Adam/God theory, Blood atonement, Blacks will not hold Priesthood and the ever-giving doctrine on plurality of wives which began with the wicked Lamech and is still being endorsed to this day by church leaders, historians, fundamentalists and Satan himself.
This is the unfortunate nuance of Michelle's claims. Individuals who accept her message that polygamy is not of God, but then discover our prophets, seers, and revelators believed and practiced it, are then positioned to lose faith in those leaders.
Very good point
@@brianhales8971, if I understand your argument here it is .. the potential for early leaders to have been wrong about something important will be a stumbling block for many people, therefore it is not possible that they were wrong. Am I misunderstanding your argument? or is that it in a nutshell? Because @bbbarham6264 refuted that as an obviously false argument. So find a new one.
If the church simply owns the fact that there is potential that we were wrong, with all of its warts, and says that while we get to the bottom of what that means, we invite the members to have whatever option they want on the subject, but please don't make it a matter of divisive discussion in your wards, thousands of faithful members will choose to stay while we sort it out, and no matter where we end up at the end, we will be in tact. But if we refuse to do something reasonable like that, and hold to it and it turns out to be a lie, then it will destroy WAY more faith than Michelle complaining that it looks like a lie.
We should have faith in God and no one else.@@brianhales8971
The reason Michelle is doing it is because so many members are leaving the church because of polygamy. She is trying to help members regain faith in the restoration by showing that the church may have made a massive error in introducing polygamy. One of the purposes of the Book of Mormon was to correct error. In the podcast you all stated that the Bible was ambiguous when it came to polygamy. Hence the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. It condemns it. Lehi was led out of Jerusalem to raise up a righteous branch (seed). The Lord did not want them doing like unto them of old. And what were they doing? Practicing multiple wives and concubines. So the Lord tells us right there that the practice of multiple wives and concubines in Jerusalem in the Bible is an abomination. So when God wanted to raise a righteous seed he led Lehi and his family away from the people who are practicing multiple wives and concubines. He did not tell them to raise a righteous seed by practicing multiple wives and concubines. Why in the world would practicing multiple wives and concubines bring forth a righteous seed,? So when the Lord says if I command to raise up a righteous seed, he is not saying sometimes he commands polygamy. He's saying I will take them away from the people that are practicing multiple wives and concubines, otherwise they will harken unto those things ( the practice of multiple wives and concubines). I get that the church has a different interpretation than this. The church has an incentive to do so.
Jesus was righteous and he descended from Jews who practiced plural marriage.
Spot on. I wish more people could understand vs. 30 because that is exactly what the Lord is saying. I think more will come to understand as time goes by. I don't plan to stop leaving comments trying to explain that.
Have you ever noticed how much people screw up and God cleans up the mess? He takes the lemons and makes lemonade. Was it right for Lots two daughters to get him drunk then have sex with his so they could have kids? But look what God did with that mess and Christ came from one of those daughters. Think about it. Just because something is done, doesn't make it right. God has to do that part, making it right.
@@lemjwp1756we all descend from people who have broken commandments. So what
What does article of faith say.. we believe we will be punished for our own sins, not Adams transgression.
@@lemjwp1756 what does that have to do with ANYTHING?
You should take Michelle’s picture out of the thumbnail if she’s not in the podcast.
I am fascinated by Brian’s fear of Michelle taking people out of the church since it was his website that broke my shelf back in 2016.
It's had significant negative consequences I think...It was the same for one of my siblings. This narrative of polygamy being of God and that Joseph practised it actually leads people out of the church... And sometimes even causes people to leave God.
Good for you. That is exactly why church leaders and scholars have withheld the details of Joseph Smith's polygamy practice for 150+ years. It's why they asserted that Smith only plural married a few old spinster ladies so they could ride his coattails to the celestial kingdom. It's why they taught (falsely) that polygamy was only practiced to care for women whose husbands had died in "persecutions" or while crossing the plains.
Church leaders and scholars know very well that the more details that rank-and-file members learn about Joseph Smith's polygamy practice, the more of them leave the church.
Exactly, Brian has done more to push people out of the church than Michelle speaking truth has.
@@randyjordan5521 There was no reason to change the narrative unless they looked into it and realized it was false. The only reason they went back to the narrative in 2014 was because of the internet and knowing that members would be exposed at a much higher rate to the narrative. They had two choices - throw Joseph under the bus believing he being the founder could withstand it and the excuses would be more readily believed. Or, tell the truth which would put the whole line of succession and their authority in question and would be much harder to explain away because then Brigham would be exposed for who he really was. And there is also the whole familial aspect of it since members of the 12 are descendants of Brigham, and the others involved in polygamy, and no one wants to admit what lying scum their ancestors were.
@@peaceliberty4all Funny how learning true facts of Mormon history causes members to leave the church, huh. No surprise why the church has said so little about Joseph Smith's polygamy practice for 180 years.
The more Brian talks the more I believe Michelle is right!
Have you considered just researching the issue for yourself? You can start by perusing a website called "The Wives Of Joseph Smith."
All you're telling us here is that you haven't studied the subject for yourself, and you instead trust in what Michelle tells you.
@@randyjordan5521 how are you getting that from my comment. I've actually spent hundred plus hours studying the topic I've done my own deep dive into the Joseph Smith papers, the times and seasons and the scriptures.
@@tennisgirl57 Every legitimate, professional historian who has published on the issue of Mormon polygamy over the last 80 years concurs that Joseph Smith originated it. That is supported by a mountain of historical evidence.
If you want to know the facts about polygamy, I suggest that you read Richard van Wagoner's "Mormon Polygamy: A History," King and Avery's "Mormon Enigma; Emma Hale Smith," Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," or "Nauvoo Polygamy" by George D. Smith.
There are also numerous scholarly articles on the internet you can read for free, such as "Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841-44"
by Gary James Bergera
Michelle does not accept the historical evidence because she simply refuses to believe that Joseph Smith had anything to do with polygamy. In other words, she's in intellectual denial.
I’m just getting started listening, and so far, Brian doesn’t get it. He points out the flaws in Michelle’s argument by turning to authority and engaging in circular reasoning: “the LDS prophets and apostles say it is of God, so it is and Michelle is wrong.” Michelle knows what they’ve said, but she is turning to scripture, the nature of God, and the lack of godly fingerprints in the history of polygamy within the LDS Church to show why the practice of polygamy within the LDS tradition is not of God.
Michelle is turning to provable fraud (book of Mormon) by all science.
Yeah, except when God literally said He gave men multiple wives and sent the covenant of Israel through plural marriages.
@@topazblahblah Yeah. Except it's all made up man. Of course men will tell you god approves of polygamy.
I feel ya, but the fact is, plural marriage is in LDS scripture, and the GAs run the church. They're not gonna change things just to suit people like Michelle---UNLESS there's a massive amount of pressure from tens of thousands of members. Maybe if thousands of them go to SLC and protest at a conference, or boycott church meetings and stop paying tithing until the leaders cave.
It's all right there in the scriptures: Abraham, Jacob, Moses: the covenant was renewed, which would never have occurred with wicked, abominable, adulterous men. Look, we don't understand the "nature of God," MBS doesn't have some corner on understanding celestial principles, nor has she been given the mantle of prophetic discernment or authority to interpret scripture.
“William Marks was the Nauvoo Stake President from 1839 to 1844. He was in that position when Joseph and Hyrum were murdered. Commenting on the uproar involving plural wives and Joseph Smith, William Marks explained Joseph Smith said the following to him:
‘We are a ruined people.’ I asked, how so? He said: ‘This doctrine of polygamy or Spiritual wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,’ said he, ‘in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down, and its practice stopped in the church. Now’ said he, “Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council, and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent, and cease the practice of this doctrine; and’ said he, ‘I will go into the stand, and preach against it, with all my might, and in this way we may rid the church of this damnable heresy.’
This is a well-known quote. Based on what I now understand about this topic, when Joseph said, “I have been deceived in reference to its practice” it is evident to me now that he was deceived by leading church authorities who were trying to practice it in secret.
I also believe that when Joseph said polygamy “will prove our destruction and overthrow” he was not talking about the 1840s. I believe it was a prophecy being fulfilled today; right now. It is the topic that will destroy and overthrow the LDS church.
It will overthrow the LDS church because they teach that Joseph Smith lied publicly to hide his adultery. Make no mistake, under the then-existing laws, the practice was adultery. It was a crime. Therefore, the LDS church is claiming it was founded by a criminal, who lied publicly. It just does not fit the moral character expected of us by God.
Testimonies are being destroyed and confidence in the restoration is being lost because of this lie connecting Joseph Smith to something he fought, denounced, and said would lead to hell.
The thing about liars is that they lie. Joseph Smith did not lie about this part of his history. But the LDS church did, and has consistently lied about numerous other matters involving their history. Their lies are causing an out-migration that seems to be accelerating. That is something tragic for them, for society, for Utah, Idaho, Arizona and California. Latter-day Saints make good citizens and good neighbors. When disaffected members depart, they often become far less benign. All of society is harmed.
I wish the LDS leaders would see what is happening and tell a more truthful account of their history. Joseph Smith does not deserve to have them claim to be his greatest legacy. They are Brigham Young’s and not Joseph’s.”
I've read those quotes too… But apparently they're not sourced well and many aren't sure of their . Do you happen to have the source for them?
"I also believe that when Joseph said polygamy “will prove our destruction and overthrow” he was not talking about the 1840s. I believe it was a prophecy being fulfilled today; right now. It is the topic that will destroy and overthrow the LDS church."
Nope, Smith was referring to what was happening in his life at the time. Smith's order to Marks was an attempt to backtrack on the polygamy that he had been teaching and practicing for the past three years. Putting his order in context, Smith's former counselor in the church presidency, William Law, who opposed polygamy, had joined with other anti-polygamists to publish the "Nauvoo Expositor." Law's agenda was to force Smith to resign as church president and have a caretaker committee take charge so that they could root out polygamy and other false doctrines, and end Smith's culture of crime. As part of Law's plan, he filed charges against Smith of "living in an open state of adultery" with Maria Lawrence. That caused Smith to deliver his infamous speech in which he denied "having seven wives" on May 26. Law's charge made Smith realize that his polygamy practice that he had tried to keep secret for three years was in danger of being exposed to the world, and it would cause him to lose the church presidency and his growing fortune. The "Expositor" was published on June 7. Smith foolishly tried to minimize the damage from it by ordering its printing press destroyed on June 10.
William Marks said that his conversation with Smith occurred two or three weeks before his death. Marks was the Nauvoo Stake president, and he was present in the meeting of the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843, in which Hyrum Smith introduced the revelation on celestial marriage. So when Joseph Smith had that conversation with Marks a few weeks before his death, Marks was well aware that Smith was the instigator of polygamy. That is why Marks said "When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church." Only Joseph Smith had the authority to introduce a doctrine "as a principle of exaltation." So Marks was obviously referring to the revelation on celestial marriage which Joseph himself had introduced. Marks was NOT referring to an unauthorized practice that was started by Brigham Young or anyone other than Joseph.
Historians have found that Smith took no more plural wives for the last eight months of his life, after marrying around 30 in the four previous Nauvoo years. That indicates that he realized that the fertilizer was about to hit the ventilator, and adds further context to his order to Marks to begin excommunicating all polygamists. If all of the polygamists (about 80 total members) were booted out, that would allow Smith to "plausibly deny" responsibility for the practice. Of course, Smith's order did not mean that all polygamists should be booted out forever; Smith had told his secretary, William Clayton, that if his own plural marriage to his wife's sister was made public, that Smith would make a public showing of excommunicating him for a short time and then "I will baptise you and set you ahead as good as ever." Smith couldn't very well dump all of his apostles and other high-ranking leaders and the women whom he had inducted into plural marriage; so his order to Marks was intended as a temporary stopgap move. His plan was for all of the polygamists to quickly "repent" and be rebaptized.
Unfortunately for Smith, his unwise order to destroy the "Expositor" press renders his order to Marks moot. Smith was arrested for that crime, and local non-Mormons who were outraged at his violation of the freedom of the press and his other crimes stormed the jail and killed him and Hyrum on June 27. When William Law filed his charges against Smith, if Smith had just humbled himself and admitted to polygamy and taken his punishment and resigned as church president, he and Hyrum would not have been killed.
"It will overthrow the LDS church because they teach that Joseph Smith lied publicly to hide his adultery. Make no mistake, under the then-existing laws, the practice was adultery. It was a crime. Therefore, the LDS church is claiming it was founded by a criminal, who lied publicly. It just does not fit the moral character expected of us by God."
That is true, but when one dispassionately studies everything Smith did in his life, it was ALL a lie. That should not be surprising to learn, considering that Smith began his public career as a fraud artist years before he began talking about angelic visitations and golden plates.
Smith came up with his "plural marriage" plan because he had gained enough followers who believed that he was a "prophet of God" that he could convince them that his "revelation on celestial marriage" was authentic too. Smith simply wanted to have sex with a lot of different women, as many cult founders/leaders do. Because his religion was Christian-based, he couldn't just go around propositioning women willy-nilly, because that would have been adultery; he had to couch his plan in the form of a religious doctrine. The problem with the Utah LDS church today is that they still adhere to that as religious doctrine. It would be difficult for the church to just disavow plural marriage, because it is tied to "eternal marriage", meaning temple marriage. Because the promise of eternal marriage is one of the church's biggest selling points, it would be hard for them to excise the plural marriage portions from D&C 132. That would be their admission that Smith's revelation was false, and his practice was wrong.
@@truthseeker4286 "I've read those quotes too… But apparently they're not sourced well and many aren't sure of their"
I suggest you read my post below. William Marks had been present in the Nauvoo High Council meeting on August 12, 1843, wherein Hyrum Smith presented the "revelation on celestial marriage" to the council for their sustaining vote. Marks and two others opposed the motion, but he nevertheless remained faithful and continued in his calling. That is the context of Marks' statement "When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church." Marks' entire statement jibes with the events that were happening over the last few weeks of Smith's life, so there is no question that his statement is authentic.
@@randyjordan5521 Please provide us with the source where Marks himself states he was present when the revelation was presented, as Joseph says to Marks that he is happy he hadn't been introduced to it.
That quote you gave from Marks at the end of your post is in reference to after Joseph's death, it is the reason Brigham excommunicated him and everyone else who was against polygamy. Marks was popular with Joseph and the whole Smith family up until Joseph's death and even after, as Emma wanted him to take over after Joseph died. The only time there was anything amiss between Joseph and Marks was when someone informed Joseph there was a Brutus in his midst and he thought it might be Law or Marks, it had nothing to do with polygamy.
It’s odd that with “hundreds” of quotes from Church leaders supporting plural marriage Mr. Hales doesn’t put forward any from Joseph Smith.
Hi, I tried to make the point that transparency requires us to consult all documents dealing with a point. Thus, we are not constrained to one set of manuscripts to draw our conclusions. We have a few documents from JS's lifetime (Clayton's journal, Sarah Ann Whitney's blessing, Affidavits in the Expositor), but there are dozens of other eyewitness accounts that a transparencyist will happily include, even if they are not contemporaneous. My three volumes reference these.
@@brianhales8971 there are none to quote that haven't been proven false... plus he just quoted polygamist men, like we wouldn't notice... lol
proven false? You cannot seriously condemn over 100 men and women as liars. That's a fantasy conspiracy theory.
I don’t disagree with your statement about taking all sources into account. But I’m asking where is the affirming statement(s) from the Joseph Smith, the one who started it all. I’ve only read statements of JS disavowing and condemning plural marriage. Do your three volumes contain JS statements (not statements from others) confirming that polygamy comes from God, that it is a holy, eternal doctrine and practice, that saints should practice it, or that he himself practiced it?Or do we just have him denying it and saying it’s wicked?
Is there any other doctrine or practice in the Church that Joseph secretly restored but openly denied? I can’t think of one. If not, that puts polygamy, at least prima facie, in a singular, if not precarious, position.
You are really using affidavits printed in the expositor to bolster your belief? (How could we possibly doubt something printed in the Expositor? LOL)
To believe that Joseph would refuse to keep a commandment of God after everything he had been through is just ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is to believe that God sends angels to force people to keep his commandments. It is also ludicrous to believe that God would want his prophet to lie about a commandment He used the threat of death to get him to keep.
The logical answer to your comment is that "God" was never involved in anything Joseph Smith did.
Calling polygamy a “principle” doesn’t change adultery into a Godly practice.
Oh boy Brian --total hit job to see if the church will discipline Michelle as an apostate. Below the belt Brian! Brian can't go toe to toe so he attacks her personally.
Hi. I don't think so. I'm inviting Michelle to declare her objectives here. Her willingness to tell us past prophets were in error and our scriptures have falsehoods and to gently mock our current apostles must be designed to accomplish some goal--but what is it?
@@brianhales8971 D&C 64:38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion. 39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.
What did the RS record Joseph calling the "apostles?" Wasn't it something like "Great Big Elders?" The presidents and apostles aren't going to call each other out, so who else is going to do it? You don't seem to portray well the discernment to know when a man of high office in the church is speaking a truth or a lie. From my perspective, you strain at a gnat to swallow the camel that the brethren dish out. I pray the fast today affects your heart to be broken and consider the error of your ways that you may be swift to repent, and that God will give you a word so you don't have to rely on other men's words.
@@brianhales8971Brian, she answered this question to your face when you asked it the first time. If it was too many words for you to understand, go re-watch it a few times until you understand. Do you think she is mis-representing herself in her response, if so .. a follow-up question is in order. But to re-ask a question she has given you a direct answer to is bad form. Especially in a rhetorical manor without her present.
If I remember correctly her end game is to bring out the truth, whatever it is, and let the cards fall where they may, because the truth is better than building on a lie.
He's written 3 books. Surely he's learned a few things.
D&C 132 is canonized doctrine. Mormons make a covenant in the temple endowment ceremony to obey the scriptures. If Michelle opposes D&C 132, then she is an apostate, regardless of whether the church takes action against her or not. Traditionally, church leaders kick out members who come out in "open rebellion" or draw other church members away to their unorthodox or heretical views. So Michelle is already an apostate. It doesn't matter if D&C 132 is true or correct or not. It's canonized church doctrine.
It makes perfect sense that they would use the phraseology of the Expositor in order to give credence to the claim that it came from Joseph. It also makes sense that the Expositor clan would have got wind of the false teachings being spread within the church by those who would later take over the church and further promote those teachings.
The people in the expositors seem like really good people trying to do the right thing; they just can't handle Joseph Smith doing secretive polygamy and him teaching that God has a father etc. as I read the expositor I don't see anything that's false on it and I see them as a very sincere. They simply believe that Joseph was a fallen prophet.
Recall that many of the early saints were very Victorian; very traditional marriage folks where propriety was of the upmost importance etc. And now that this person that they chose to follow, turns that world upside down and now authorizes plural marriages? That they view as adultery on steroids ....Especially in secret?
It's just messy.
For example, we've heard from the church curriculum, (totally purposely whitewashed) the one extermination order against the Mormons, by Governor Boggs. But the rest of the story is that three months prior to that order it was first councilor Sygny Rigdon, who gave a stirring oration about how enemies of the church should be exterminated and destroyed with the help of God and angels. Joseph Smith on the stand on July 4 as Rigdon gave this call to arms. This is why Brigham Young in the Salt Lake conference said in essence were it not for Cidne Rigdon we would not have been subject to the exterminator order..
@@truthseeker4286 LOL. I would encourage you to research the people involved in the Expositor.
Duh, the "Expositor clan" used that phraseology because they had heard it directly from Joseph and Hyrum. And they were not the only ones; numerous other people from 1842-44 stated that Joseph and/or Hyrum had introduced the doctrine to them, and they cited the same type verbiage that the Expositor did.
On August 12, 1843, Hyrum Smith read the revelation before the Nauvoo High Council to sustain it as church doctrine. Six men present in that meeting testified that what Hyrum read was the same document as D&C 132 today. One of the high councilors, Austin Cowles, was one of the "Expositor" publishers. He swore a legal affidavit testifying to what Hyrum read in that meeting:
" In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah."
Austin Cowles and the other "Expositor" publishers soon left Nauvoo and the church. They did not support Brigham Young nor go west with him. So those men, who opposed polygamy, would certainly not have conspired with Brigham to falsely assert that Joseph was polygamy's originator, nor aid him in composing a false document and attributing it to Joseph.
@@truthseeker4286 That is one of the biggest lies of Mormonism: the claim that the "Expositor" publishers were the bad guys in the situation, and Joseph and Hyrum Smith were the good guys.
@@nostoppingit7243 see @randyjordan5521 for further references.
It calls polygamy a crime in Section 101!
Brian is really stretching credulity at this point. Almost no person reading D&C 101:4 would read it as leaving open the possibility for polygamy.
Hi, It is not my argument, but that advanced by President Joseph F. Smith in 1902.
@@brianhales8971 Respectfully, when you presented that interpretation by Joseph F Smith you added commentary of your own that stated that the reading is ambiguous. I would be willing to bet if you selected 100 people unaffiliated with the church to read this passage and summarize what was meant they would uniformly support the plain reading unambiguously. In my opinion, it was the desire to harmonize polygamy with that verse that made an ambiguous reading necessary.
@@brianhales8971 Presented by Joseph F. Smith in addition to some linguists, you said. Could you provide your sources of these linguists that support his interpretation so we could read their analyses of the text?
Totally agree. If you switch the words around of husband and wife it still works, but yet LDS don't allow for polyandry (except for Joseph Smith).
The plain reading is that the church in that passage is trying to deny polygamy
@@brianhales8971 Who was a practicing polygamist even after claiming the church had stopped!!!
37:12 Brian is not being honest here....
The whole portion of section 101 dealing with polygamy reads
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."
So, per this FULL statement, is a man at liberty to marry again while his current wife is still alive and married to him? No.
The God and prophets I believe in don't like to deceive people with semantics
What is confusing is that a God who delights in "truth and plainness" gives revelations denouncing polygamy but then also uses “carefully worded” phrases to hide ambiguous "loopholes" to the law he just clearly explained is wrong.
Exactly, and the other phrase that he left out when quoting section 101 is: "You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves *wholly* for each other, and *from all others*, during your lives.”
Seems pretty clear
@@lisadavis9081I love how you articulated this! So true!
I’m truly baffled why the only clear exception laid out here is ignored, but we’re supposed to believe that the true exception is in Jacob 2.30.
Brian, Michelle makes it clear that her “end game” is to SEEK TRUTH and let people decide for themselves. You say she is causing “confusion”, never realizing that your work has caused just as much confusion. The first time I was ever really confused about the topic of polygamy was after reading the information on YOUR website Joseph smith’s polygamy. After finding your website years ago, before Michelle ever existed online, I read the evidence you presented and discovered for myself that polygamy could never be from God. Have you ever considered how many people have left the church after reading the material that you made available on your own website? Michelle is not causing confusion. The EVIDENCE is causing confusion.
- What is confusing for people is being told they are supposed to believe something as horrific as polygamy came from a loving God.
- What is confusing is being told they are supposed to believe in a God who teaches and expects honesty and integrity, would also authorize & condone all the deception and betrayal involved in the ungodly way they practiced it.
- What is confusing is being told to believe God is unchanging and loving but for some absurd reasons that matter way more to God than shattering the hearts of His daughters, he sometimes commands men to treat women like property and sexual objects.
-What is confusing is being told to believe in a God who gave men free agency but who also coerced Joseph with the threat of an Angel and flaming sword to practice polygamy; and then threatened all women in D&C 132 who don’t accept this practice with destruction.
- What is confusing is that a God who delights in truth and plainness gives revelations denouncing polygamy but then in the very same revelation, contradicts himself by using
“carefully worded” phrases to hide ambiguous “loopholes” to the law he just clearly explained (Jacob 2, D&C 101)
- What is confusing is being told that God commanded polygamy to “raise up seed” when it’s been proven that the birth rate for women in polygamy is less than the birth rate of women in monogomous relationships. (population growth happens by increasing the birth rate per woman, not the birth rate per man. Significantly Increasing the birth rate for just one man or a few men is practicing eugenics).
- What's confusing is being told that polygamy was a way to take care of the single women and the widows. When most of the women that were subject to plural marriage were not widows, and some were even already married to other men.
- What is confusing is being told in my youth by church leaders that polygamy was necessary because there were more righteous men than women in the early days of the church, when the recent statistics that have come out show that more pioneer men actually crossed the plains than women. (BYU magazine published in 2015 that 28,000 men and 26,000 females crossed the plains)
- What is confusing is being told that God “commanded” Abraham to practice Polygamy when nowhere in scripture does it say that it was “commanded” except in Joseph’s own revelation (D&C 132)
- What is confusing is that a church that claims to be infallible (the only true church) chose to keep all this evidence obscure for so many years.
And why is confusion such a bad thing anyway? Confusion encourages people to search for answers and the truth. Confusion encourages people to think for themselves. You sound like you are afraid of confusion Brian. It sounds like you would rather people be robots and blindly follow what someone else tells them to believe. Let’s not be afraid of confusion. The truth will always win.
" The first time I was ever really confused about the topic of polygamy was after reading the information on YOUR website Joseph smith’s polygamy. After finding your website years ago, before Michelle ever existed online, I read the evidence you presented and discovered for myself that polygamy could never be from God."
I agree with your statement here. But since the evidence that Joseph Smith is the man who originated polygamy is overwhelming, then that should tell you that Joseph Smith was not a man of God.
Dang, girl!! You win the internet today!! So well said.
For Brian to talk about transparency and propaganda while trying to present how 132 was introduced is exactly the propaganda he is referring to. It is clear from Michelle's tone she isn't actually suggesting that it came about by magic, she is being facetious and joking because it is strange that the original is nowhere to be found and there is a copy that was conveniently locked on Brigham's desk by someone who was a clerk in Nauvoo...not a scribe or anyone that would have had any business copying revelations. He also knows history was revised and rewritten so the contemporaneous sources documenting the revelation being given on that day aren't solid and don't mean the revelation given was 132. His explanation only works for people who haven't looked into this farther. None of this would be considered proof...which is why an impartial judge determined polygamy wasn't the law of the church when Joseph died and the Utah version wasn't the same church Joseph led.
Numerous accounts from people who said that Joseph or Hyrum Smith personally taught the principle of plural marriage to them quoted or cited verbiage from the "revelation" DURING JOSEPH'S LIFETIME. That makes it obvious that the document was produced by Joseph, not by Brigham years after Joseph's death. So Michelle's statement that Brigham "magically" pulled the document out of his desk, inferring that it was unknown before 1852, is not true.
I have been researching polygamy for the past five years. Although I am not a historian, I do have the spirit of discernment. I am certain that God never commanded, authorized, or excused polygamy or anything like it. More importantly, ALL scripture clearly proves this. Because I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then I also believe that the minute amount of evidence that vaguely suggests he was a polygamist is far outweighed by the huge amount of evidence that he was a man of God and never betrayed the law of chastity. Hales is a Mormon orthodox apologist who wrote his fiction trilogy with that bias from the get-go. His work is a load of crap. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who has sided with the anti-Mormons instead of Joseph and the Lord. One day he’ll wake up. I hope it’s sooner than later. I hope that he will write a formal apology to the Saints so that members who trust him will turn back to the Lord. The church needs to repent and I applaud Michelle Stone for exposing the lies in our history and highlighting the truths of God so that repentance will happen sooner than later. Until that happens the church will remain under condemnation.
Well stated!!
10,000% Well said!!!
Brian Hales, like it or not, is the primary apologist working for the church and contributed to the gospel topics essay on the topic approved by the Q12. All of this to say, your prophets, seers, and revelators are relying on him to tell what they believe is an accurate history on the topic. If you are "certain that God never commanded, authorized, or excused polygamy or anything like it", are you equally certain that the prophets of today are lying about this topic? How do you know the mind and will of God?
I was going to say this exact thing! I have been an LDS member all my life and still believe God is working through it to bring about his purposes. Trust in Christ, not the arm of flesh.
Hello Scott, I appreciate your comment. I don’t know if the prophets of today even have the time to research this subject. Therefore, I don’t know if they know the things that I have learned. I believe that they are men who have been entrusted with a very difficult calling and with so little free time on their hands, they must rely on the works of church historians. I do not believe that they are in a constant state of revelation, nor do I believe that they speak as a prophet of God all of the time. I hope that they are not lying. I think it’s more likely that they just don’t understand the topic. I believe that if they researched God’s word concerning polygamy and the real historical document as much as I have, and certainly as much as Michelle Stone has, then they would arrive at the exact same conclusion that we have-that God has never authorized polygamy. Instead, he condemned it on multiple occasions. The only way that I can truly know the mind and will of God is to study the scriptures and be spiritually aware. The best source we have for understanding the mind and will of God on this subject is Jacob in the Book of Mormon. His sermon on pride and polygamy is as clear as it can possibly be. Jesus Christ himself appeared to Jacob and gave him the words that he should speak to his people. Therefore, because of this, I do know the mind, and will of God concerning this matter. Strangely, the church has adopted a crazy spin on Jacob’s sermon. And the spin is that God’s general commandment is to live the law of monogamy, unless He commands otherwise; thus, the rational for living the whoredom and abomination spoken of by Jacob was excused by the early church leaders due to the Lord supposedly “commanding otherwise”. This is where an understanding of church history on a micro level is so important. You will be aghast at the numerous edits that have been made to the words of the prophet of the restoration just so that Brigham and his cohorts could rationalize their “new order of things”.
Section 101 is as clear as you can get aside from Jacob 2 for condemning polygamy...just like later leaders attempted to change the meaning on verse 30 into some kind of a loophole, Brian and Joseph F Smith's reinterpretation of the old Section 101 is not what it says. Aside from that Joseph stated it many other ways that polygamy is condemned. John Taylor used Section 101 on more than 1 occasion to prove the church wasn't practicing polygamy when he himself currently was showing John Taylor was dishonest.
There really are only 2 conclusions. Either Joseph Smith practiced polygamy while publicly denying it, excommunicating others for practicing it and condemning it which makes him a liar, or he was an honest man and practiced what he preached - given the facts there isn't any other conclusion. God isn't a liar and his prophets aren't either...
Love all your posts and couldn't agree more.
"There really are only 2 conclusions. Either Joseph Smith practiced polygamy while publicly denying it, excommunicating others for practicing it and condemning it which makes him a liar, or he was an honest man and practiced what he preached"
Considering that the historical evidence overwhelmingly shows that Smith practiced polygamy while lying about it, he definitely was not an honest man.
I don't know why there's this sudden wave of Utah Mormons who don't believe that Smith practiced polygamy. I spent my first 42 years as a Mormon, and I heard about his plural wives such as Eliza R. Snow, Zina Huntington Jacobs, and Louisa Beaman over the years. I remember hearing the story about Joseph asking Heber C. Kimball for his wife Vilate, and Heber asked Joseph to take his daughter Helen instead. I heard that story in a priesthood lesson as a 19-year-old missionary in 1974.
Now, I admit that I didn't know that Smith had dozens of plural wives until I bought and read Fawn Brodie's bio about 25 years ago. But in those days, church leaders and apologists said that Brodie was discredited in order to keep members from reading her book.
@randyjordan5521 the problem with the historical evidence is it has been altered and when looked at closer one finds many sources are 2nd or 3rd hand, or latent, or contradict other sources. The sudden wave of Utah Mormons who are questioning whether or not Smith practiced polygamy is likely due to historical documents becoming much more accessible and available and those people realizing there are 2 sides to the story and wanting to examine the history and make their own determination. Also finding out how many other things the church lied about and how they altered history regarding their involvement with the natives, the handcart companies, finding out how much money they were hoarding and being dishonest about, and on and on makes it easy to realize everything they said needs to be questioned, because the church hasn't been honest.
05:20
Why not go point for point with Michelle?
Why would that not be helpful?
Well for starters, Michelle simply rejects all sources and facts that contradict her chosen positions, so there isn't much point in trying to set her straight.
@@randyjordan5521 What you are accusing Michelle of doing is exactly the approach I see you taking, Randy. You say you have been listening to her for over a year, but I have not seen you address the arguments. You seem stuck on automatic, and anything introduced that contradicts your established view is simply not worth looking at. Where is your point-by-point refutation of the findings of Whitney Horning or Jeremy Hoops, to name just two examples? Have I missed them?
@@rockwaterman "You say you have been listening to her for over a year, but I have not seen you address the arguments."
LOL. Well, I suggest that you go back through some of her videos and read my comments. You can start with her #54, #57, and #70, and her recent one #107.
Just two weeks ago, after I copied John W. Rigdon's 1842 account of Joseph Smith's proposition of plural marriage to his sister Nancy (which incident Michelle refuses to believe happened) on one of Michelle's videos, she responded that I am obviously well educated on these issues, and she invited me to do an episode of her show. I replied to her that it would be pointless for me to do that, because she would simply repeat her tactic of attacking the character or credibility of everyone who said that Joseph Smith started polygamy. So, seeing as how she is intractable, I make my comments her for the benefit of readers who are capable of rational thought.
"You seem stuck on automatic, and anything introduced that contradicts your established view is simply not worth looking at."
Duh, d'ya think that might be because I cite the actual facts from original sources, as well as the writings of legitimate Mormon historians? There isn't a legitimate historian of Mormonism, living or dead, who does not believe that Joseph Smith originated polygamy, because the evidence overwhelmingly shows that he did.
"Where is your point-by-point refutation of the findings of Whitney Horning or Jeremy Hoops, to name just two examples?"
A lot of my refutations are in the comments sections of the videos I listed above. As a general statement, the people you name are conspiracy theorists like Michelle and this Clark guy here in this video. They cherry-pick quotes from people like Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Parley P. Pratt, etc., and twist them into making it appear that they were all practicing polygamy in secret against Smith's teachings, and that they all conspired with each other to kill Joseph and Hyrum so they could continue to practice polygamy.
I have told Michelle numerous times that that theory is as wild and nonsensical as the theory that Paul McCartney was killed in a car wreck in 1966, and that an imposter has been impersonating him all these years. So if you agree with Michelle's/Clark's/Jeremy's/Whitney's conspiracy theories, you are as misinformed and as deluded as they are.
Years ago I read the first of Brian's books. It was soooo painful but I felt like I needed to face the truth about polygamy. His book felt very straight forward to me. At the end of the book, he talks about how the women who had been married to Joseph Smith wrote each other letters, talking about the future in a positive way. For me, that was when my peace came. If they were okay with it, then I am okay with it for them. These were smart independent women. When I recently listened to Michelle, I was confused for a bit because honestly, I would PREFER to believe the way she does, but I can't deny the information I felt was true from Brian's book. It was not just one thing. It was information from many years regarding polygamy. So, anyway, I was grateful I had that information BEFORE I encountered Michelle's information.
Good Lord. Having not spoken to any of the victims, you're not an expert. Ten of Chairman Yung's "brides" divorced his dumb ass. Grow up, dear.
I wonder if Michelle has read Brian's books. I would lean towards no.
@@grneal26 I agree. Too painful for her world view. It was painful for mine, but I'm grateful still for Brian's books.
@@latterdayway Why not educate yourself before passing judgment?
@@latterdaywayonly you’re strong enough for that right? What an arrogant thing to imply.
Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Jacob 2.24
♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
In the OT it says God gave David his wives. It was the excesses, allowing it to cause them to turn from God, as Solomin did, that was the abomination. As with most anything, there can be positive and negative application.
@@lemjwp1756 Get your hand on a JST copy of the bible. You may find something a little different.
because you don't throw 600 women to the wolves, he was to look after them because they were all widows now. @@lemjwp1756
@@lemjwp1756 Nope, that's not what Jesus Christ said, according to the book of Mormon. Read the scripture again. David and Solomon, having many wives and concubines was an abomination. Period. So yes, that means that the reader of scripture will have to choose between what he said according to DNC 132 and what he said according book of mormon.
Ensuring clarity on the above contradiction: The Lord in Jacob 2 states that David and Solomon having wives and concubines was abominable. But according to DC 132 The Lord gave David and Solomon wives and concubines.
I believe you have bent the meaning of the book of Mormon verse to force the narrative. I mean you really stretched it . Hence the mental gymnastics.
Thank you for putting this back up!
37:23
..."the crime of fornication, and polygamy:" tells me that it's the same crime. Saying that polygamy is just mentioned here, and is not a crime in this context, is absurd!
Joseph Smith and other church leaders also denied all non-monogamous forms of marriage.
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.
We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J[ohn] C. Bennett’s “secret wife system”60 is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bacheler,61 are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despised. In support of this position, we present the following certificates:-
We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one publised from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett’s “secret wife system” is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did."
----"Times And Seasons," October 1, 1842.
The Joseph Smith Papers editors made this statement about that item:
"The fourth editorial selection, following up on an editorial in a previous issue of the Times and Seasons, reiterated a portion of the church’s 1835 statement on marriage. This editorial was written in response to John C. Bennett’s ongoing efforts to discredit JS with claims that JS was secretly marrying and proposing marriage to numerous women in Nauvoo. While JS and a small group of other church members had begun privately practicing plural marriage by this time, the church publicly denied rumors of polygamy."
So the church-employed editors of the Joseph Smith Papers project admit that Joseph Smith was a liar and an adulterer.
@@randyjordan5521 Many of us don’t believe the “church-employed editors.” You go right ahead and believe their opinions, though. I will believe Joseph, Emma, Hyrum, & the testimony of the BoM on the subject.
@@lindsayashton1385 Why don't you just close your eyes and plug up your ears instead.
EVERY legitmate historian of Mormonism concurs that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy, because of the overwhelming evidence which proves it.
The fact that Joseph, Emma, and Hyrum lied about polygamy does not magically wash away documented evidence.
@@lindsayashton1385 Did yuo also believe Bill Clinton when he said "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky?"
Is the concept of a man lying about a sexual affair foreign to you?
Are you aware of the numerous testimonies, some which are legal affidavits, published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, which affirm that he originated and practiced polygamy? Are you aware of why Joseph Smith ordered the printing press of the "Nauvoo Expositor" destroyed on June 10, 1844?
I will tell you what legitimate historians have written on this subject:
"William Law, a prominent Nauvoo businessman, was solidly devoted to Smith until mid-1843. During the Bennett scandal, he quickly came to Smith's defense, reassuring the Saints that Church leaders did not condone 'spiritual wifery' or any such behavior. Smith held his counselor in such high esteem that he included him in the first small group of male initiates to the endowment ceremony in May 1842. And Law rendered much moral and financial support to a discouraged Smith when Missouri officials were attempting to extradite him on the Boggs case.
"'By early 1843, however, Law began to waver in his commitment to Smith. Initial difficulties between the two centered on business matters. . . .But a deeper source of the Laws' disaffection was their detestation of polygamy. In an 1887 interview William explained that Hyrum Smith had shown him the "revelation on celestial marriage" in the fall of 1843. "Hyrum gave it to me in his office," Law said, and "told me to take it home and read it. . . . He and Jane "were just turned upside down by it" . . . William took the document directly to the prophet and commented that it was in contradiction to the Doctrine and Covenants. Smith noted that the section on marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants was "given when the Church was in its infancy, when they were babes, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have some meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation," William wrote. "He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times in its favor.' ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 64-65)
"The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law,
Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the
prophet......On May 23 he filed suit against the Mormon leader in Hancock
County Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith had been living with
Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October 12, 1843, to the day
of the suit. In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered
on May 26: '[The charges against me are false].....What a thing it is for a
man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can
only find one.....[I can prove them all perjurers.]' As polygamy was illegal
under US law, Smith had little choice but to repudiate the practice."
(In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pp. 476-477.)
"'In early 1843 Austin [Cowles] . . . .played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young,
guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles and Parley P. Pratt. These men--the Nauvoo Stake President, his First Counselor, and an eloquent Apostle--would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism.
"'Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent.
"'Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12. Three of the leading Brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin
Cowles and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also remarkable that Marks, Cowles and Soby would openly reject it. This was awatershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history.
"'Undoubtedly, Austin soon saw that he could not function as a Church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the High Council minutes, "President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Counselor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council." Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin "was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo." After resigning his presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place." . . . Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed President and selected Austin Cowles as his First Counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was "cut off" from the main LDS Church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the "Nauvoo Expositor," the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the "Expositor" press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that
led to his martyrdom.' ("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," pp. 549-50)
After Joseph and Hyrum were killed, their long-time associate and high-ranking church leader Sidney Rigdon said thist:
"On Thursday evening we gave the history of Nauvoo, and the events that led to the death of the Smiths, which, of course, we traced to the introduction of the spiritual wife system; for all that know any thing about it, that it was the introduction of that system which led to the death of the Smiths, and that if that system had not been introduced, they might have been living men to-day."---March 15, 1845.
"They introduced a base system of polygamy, worse by far than that of the heathen; this system of corruption brought a train of evils with it, which terminated in their entire ruin. After this system was introduced, being in opposition [to] the laws of the land, they, had to put truth at defiance to conceal it, and in order to do it, perjury was often practiced. This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their death, and was the thing which put them into the power of their enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death."---June, 1846.
End quotes. Considering that Joseph Smith's close, loyal disciple since 1830, Sidney Rigdon, admitted that Joseph and Hyrum lied in order to conceal their polygamy practice, do you still believe that Joseph was telling the truth when he denied having anything to do with polygamy?
@@lindsayashton1385 LOL. In 1838, Joseph Smith answered a question that was put to him:
"Question 7th. Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one.
Answer. No, not at the same time. But they believe, that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again."
Joseph Smith was secretly practicing polygamy when he made that statement.
It sounds like Brian Hales is hinting that Michelle needs to be excommunicated. And that undermining faith in leaders is more important than faith in God. Human beings, apostles and everyone, are not perfect and don't even know us. God does and loves us perfectly which means we can trust Him; not always leaders.
Well said
Well speaking ill of the lords anointed is also a thing you are not supposed to do so I understand why someone would think that
@@bambie1830 the Lords anointed is Jehovah. And Elohim.
@@bambie1830 What if the leaders are wrong? Just sit down and shut up?
@@7dixiebug If you believe in the temple, everyone who has been through it has been anointed to be kings and queens, priests and priestesses. So I guess based on that we shouldn't speak ill of anyone who has been through the temple. And who gets to define "speaking ill of?" @bambie1830
34:34
Brian Hales' and Joseph F. Smith's interpretation of "but one wife" = "at least one wife" is just ridiculous and laughable! 🤦
THIS 👆 is why Brian is an apologist.
It doesn’t say that, it says every man should have one wife and every woman but one husband. The women get the “but” one statement, the men don’t get that statement.
This difference looks intentional. It is like how when you read an insurance contract you think you are covered until your house actually has an issue and you find out their carefully worded contract leaves them off the hook. Of course they intentionally wrote it that way, it wasn’t a coincidence.
Likewise it isn’t a coincidence that technically speaking, If they don’t name it polygamy and they all have at least one wife, Joseph’s inner circle is technically obeying section 101 even if they are also marrying and sleeping with their maids and their orphaned foster daughters.
There is motives for this wording and there is unnatural language that lets them off the hook. Those two things combined make a strong case for what Hales is saying.
..."one man should have one wife," couldn't be clearer.
@@tylerboyce6502 if that was all that was said it might be clear but contrasted with “every woman BUT one husband” changes the story. Plus of course first hand testimony from his wives state he was marrying them and first hand accounts of many men involved back up the weddings.
It is obvious that Michelle believes that early church leaders were wrong when it comes to polygamy coming from God. Just because many church leaders have believed and taught something doesn't make it true. Church leaders have changed their position on other issues over time like on the priesthood ban and Adam-God just to name two. Church leaders should be subject to criticism where they are wrong. We should all be devoted too and seeking truth. Brian seems to be supporting prophetic infallibility and frankly his mode of trying to quell contrary opinions is one reason many have left the church.
Russell M. Nelson: "Questions frequently asked relate to polygamy. . . . Simply answered: yes, we did, and no, we don't. Both periods were initiated by divine direction." (Teachings of Russell M. Nelson, p. 276.)
But yes we still do in the temple.
@@brianhales8971 I understand you opinion. It is clear you support the leadership of the church and want to present a continuous and consistent teaching about polygamy. Any disagreement on this issue between leaders could undermine the church and you want people to stay in. I have no problem with that desire. The church does a lot of good for a lot of people. That being said, nobody living today actually knows if Joseph Smith practiced polygamy or not. All the accounts are from people other than Joseph and the fact that a clearly fertile man didn't have children with any of these women should, at the very least, make the issue unsettled. It then becomes a matter of faith not science.
But doctrines don’t change right?
@@brianhales8971 I thought the Book of Mormon taught that God is unchanging yesterday, today and tomorrow. The 10 commandments have never changed. Men break the laws of God because we are weak. The BOM teaches this clearly. Mormon lamented over our unsteadiness.
The end goal is the truth.
no, I'm afraid its what people want to make them feel comfortable. Joseph was a polygamist.
@lemjwp1756 If you are an active member of the Church, then believing he was a polygamist is more comfortable.
Once you look into it, it's honestly the most likely scenario that he wasn't.
@@ejs7721 Wrong. DOZENS of people in Nauvoo stated that they were introduced to polygamy directly by Joseph Smith.
@randyjordan5521 Wrong. Dozens of people that had been living polygamy for many years "said he said" in the Salt Lake Valley over 40 years later.
@@ejs7721 "Wrong. Dozens of people that had been living polygamy for many years "said he said" in the Salt Lake Valley over 40 years later."
All you're doing here is demonstrating that you know ZERO about this issue. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence which was published during Joseph Smith's lifetime IN NAUVOO which clearly shows that he originated and practiced polygamy. Polygamy was the PRIME CAUSE of Joseph's and Hyrum's deaths. So if you're not aware of the facts, maybe you'd be better off to STFU and spend your time actually studying the issue.
People need to be responsible for their own faith - Brian's statement that Michelle is responsible for "destroying" other people's faith is ridiculous. People should study the facts and make their own decisions.
Brian's clear agenda trying to get Michelle excommunicated makes him look like he is threatened by her and it comes off as petty.
If Brian really doesn't like polygamy perhaps he should study the New Testament and Galatians and question his interpretation of the Old Testament prophets like Abraham.
Every one of your observations here is gold. Thank you for all of these 🙏
Michelle's entire premise that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy is false, and is the opposite of the church's official position on the issue. So she has already "excommunicated" herself from the church, seeing as how she doesn't believe in a major aspect of its history and doctrine.
It’s strange how adamant he is about defending polygamy. The mediocre arguments he has made under the guise of “seeking truth,” have done more to harm Joseph Smith’s reputation than any anti could dream of.
Oh so true. But remember that he is paid by the church and for whatever reason the church wants to hang onto polygamy. Rob Fotheringham worked for the church for several years and had access to the various documents. He found something that sounded like Joseph never practiced polygamy and took that information to one of the apostles and was told that they already know that Joseph most likely did not practice polygamy. I am sure that Brian, Don and any others would have access to such information and it is sad to see a person sell out that way.
You sound pretty adamant yourself. Ignoring tons of eyewitness testimony because you can't accept historical facts.
This issue will prove all who truly have the spirit of Christ. Those in favor of polygamy and the abuse of women and children... those who believe God is a polygamist will be rudely awaken when they fall down to hell. Who are these persons SO IN TUNE with the devil and hell?? Does this include modern prophets??
Especially when in a previous video he talks about arrogantly wishing to go back in time and whisper in Brother Joseph's ear to advise him in matters of polygamy that he is accusing him of. IRONIC!
LOL. Plural marriage is a canonized doctrine of the LDS church. But you're criticizing Brian Hales for defending it?
“What is Michelle’s name endgame or goal,” Brian? She only states it in every single episode she’s done, including the painful episode she did with you. You simply don’t like her objective which is to search the scriptures and the original source documents and share with others because you want yourself and your 3 volumes to be the final authority on the matter.
Michelle's problem is that she only agrees with the "original source documents" which support her chosen position, and she rejects the MANY MORE of them which clearly show that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy.
Brian, I’ve noticed you reference William Clayton’s journal quite often. However, last time you were on MBR you expressed a great desire to get access to William Clayton’s *original* journals. Why do you want to see the original so badly if you believe the Clayton journals you have access to now are accurate?
The parts which have been published come from extracts made by historians who were allowed to see the original diaries. Some historians who have seen the original diaries include D. Michael Quinn, Andrew F. Ehat (back in the 1980s, his extracts were obtained and published by the Tanners which led to a copyright dispute and an ensuing legal battle), and most recently Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. None of these seasoned historians ever raised doubts about the authenticity of the diaries, which should say something in and of itself. The diaries have a rock-solid provenance, and moreover anybody can become quite familiar with William Clayton's handwriting thanks to many other extant documents that he wrote for the Prophet, many of which you can see on the Joseph Smith Papers website.
The only problem we have is that the extracts which have been made are incomplete-not that they are inaccurate or that their origin is dubious, but that they only contain the most significant, intriguing, or eventful entries. Unfortunately, many of the contextual, and more mundane yet frequent entries are missing, which is dissatisfying for those who'd like to have additional accounts of Joseph Smith's day-to-day activities. One JSP editor has said, "William Clayton documents Joseph Smith's day-to-day activities better than Joseph Smith's own journals." I personally know of another scholar who admitted that George D. Smith's publication is accurate, and that it contains "99% of the interesting parts," yet still, some of us would find mundane things still interesting, even if not quite as sensational as contemporaneous documentation of plural marriage in Nauvoo. Therefore, any historian would like to have more of Clayton's diaries become accessible for study.
@@terminuselectron6900 That is well known. Most of us here don’t need that lecture. The point is that the original is locked up away where no one can see. Arguing provenance for a document nobody who has eyes to see could see is absurd. You are a fundamentalist polygamist who believes in the Adam God doctrine and the plurality of wives so of course you hang on tight to a belief of its provenance. So many of these extracts are the sources that support your doctrines. I get it.
@@EdmundPatak Do you just call everyone a polygamist that disagrees with you?
@@terminuselectron6900 Absolutely not. I only know you are because I have watched your RUclips videos and read your numerous posts in support of all these doctrines. May I promote your channel?
@@EdmundPatak You must have me confused with someone else. I don't have a channel.
If you're going to put Michelle on the Thumbnail and title, she should also be in the interview. Talking about her, rather than to her, is bad form, IMO.
100
honestly though Rick, Steve will most likely have her on to respond. and this interview that left her out will increase the number of people who go to her podcast to get the story straight from her. so no matter how you approach it, no matter what Brian does, he's increasing her influence. Its really an interesting phenomenon to watch.
Yes. I thought Michelle would be involved.
absolutely and the presenter allowed that
The sad thing is that Brian's pleading for Michelle to let the world know what her goal is, sounds like a trap for her to be excommunicated for "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." Remember the September Six? (well actually it was seven, but who is counting?)
That is rich. You protect all church leaders except Joseph. All prophets after Joseph were participants or believers in polygamy. Right from the day Joseph was murdered they openly did polygamy. Yet Joseph only spoke against it. So they say he did it privately and lied about it. So they say Joseph was a liar and all leaders after him spoke the truth. Yet Hyrum just before his murder spoke in conference to the priesthood. He 100% condemned it. So this talk is hidden. Here is what he said.
"almost every foolish man runs to me, to enquire if such and such things are true, and how many spiritual wives a man may have. I know nothing about it; what he might call a spiritual wife, I should not know anything about. In about half an hour after he has gone, another person begins to say: “the Elders tell such and such things all over the country.” I am authorized to tell you from henceforth, that any man who comes in and tells any such damn fool doctrine, to tell him to give up his license. None but a fool teaches such stuff; the devil himself is not such a fool, and every Elder who teaches such stuff ought to have his nose wrung; any one found guilty of such teaching will be published and his license will be taken from him. ...I wish the Elders of Israel to understand it is lawful for a man to marry a wife, but it is unlawful to have more, and God has not commanded any of you to have more; and if any of you dare to presume to do any such things, it will spoil your fun, for you will never have the spirit to preach the Gospel. I despise a man who teaches a pack of stuff that will disgrace himself so; for a man to go into the world, and talk of this spiritual wife system he is as empty as an open sepulchre."
That quote of Hyrum in a talk just before his murder seals the deal for me.
William Law was an adulterer and he and his wife and 200 LDS men swore a blood oath to kill Joseph, so how is he a credible witness of anything.
All the provenance are polygamists practicing polygamy behind Joseph's back. So yes they could have written this anytime. Joseph's actual personal secretary from Temple lot testimony said he copied all revelations for Joseph from 1842 onward and he never saw 132.
Why don't we protect Joseph's good name. People are turned off by the slander against him on this issue and lose faith. Making him out to be a liar and adulterer and philanderer with 14 year olds and other mens wives does not generate faith. Think millstone and the little ones.
So you're going to claim the hundreds of men and women who said they learned of it from Joseph (confidentially) are liars? How foes that work. Joseph maintained strict confidentiality, as commanded.
@@lemjwp1756 Yes !! But they were under tyranny so how much freedom they had is debatable. The federal judge in the Temple Lot case felt they were lying. He judged that polygamy did not start with Joseph.
You folks run on and on about the temple lot case, and completely ignore journals and statements made by the wives and Joseph's closest associates!
@@lemjwp1756 They were not Joseph's closest associates. They were associates. Many of the closest ones like William Marks. and Bro Whitehead did not go along with Brigham, including Emma. Many others were driven from the church by Danites, like all the witnesses of the BOM. Hyrum's talk that I referred to above was given in 1844, yet these "closest associates" were already living polygamy in secret form Joseph and Hyrum. As for the later witnesses from Utah many years after the fact, going against the new way of things got you unalived fast.
No Rick...they were his most trusted associates. Brigham, Heber Kimball, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, John Smith (Joseph's uncle), William Clayton (!), and many more. Over 100. Come into reality Rick.
Brigham justified what David and Solomon did in D&C 132, even though God had condemned it in Jacob 2, because he wanted to justify doing the same thing in order to follow in their footsteps and build up a kingdom as they had done with polygamy.
It was Joseph Smith who produced the "revelation on celestial marriage," and it was he who justified it using Bible stories---NOT Brigham Young. Here are some examples:
"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"---Affidavit of Martha Brotherton, July 1842
"In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah."---Affidavit of Austin Cowles, May 4, 1844
"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."---Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844.
"Joe and I took a ride up to Edward Hunter's, where he borrowed one hundred dollars, and I drew his note for it on demand. Hunter, at this time, was absent. While there, Mrs. Hunter brought the Bible to Joe, and wished him to explain some passage in the 3d chapt. of Hosea, in relation to the adulteress. He replied that he would call at another time and translate it for her, for which she thanked him kindly, After this, I learned that the scripture named by Mrs. Hunter, was one of the proofs of the correctness of the spiritual wife doctrine, of which, the reader will learn more hereafter...
As I have mentioned the subject of spiritual wives, I will in this place, give the reader some idea of the system. The doctrine is called the "spirit of Elijah," and is kept a profound secret from the people at large, and is only permitted to be known to those, to whom it is given to know the "fullness of the kingdom," in other words, the choice spirits who surround Joe, and aid in carrying his secret measures. The doctrine is found on the 3d Chapter of Hosea, -- several passages from the writings of Solomon and David, and the passage "whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven." From these scripture passages, (with which I am not sufficiently familiar to quote) aided by revelation from Joe, as respects their meaning and construction, the doctrine is derived that there is no harm in a man having more wives than one, provided his extra wives are married to him spiritually. A spiritual wife is a woman, who by revelation is bound up to a man, in body parts and passions, both for this life and for all eternity; whereas the union of a carnal wife and her husband ceases at death. Whenever the scripture forbids a man from taking to himself more wives than one, Joe made it refer to carnal and not spiritual wives; and would frequently quote the writings of David and Solomon to prove his position."---Joseph H. Jackson narrative, June 1844
End quotes. ALL of these accounts state that they were taught about plural marriage from Joseph or Hyrum Smith, and ALL of them were published while Joseph and Hyrum were alive. NONE of these accounts mention Brigham Young as being polygamy's originator.
@@randyjordan5521 Enid DeBarthe did a writing analysis and found D&C 132 to not be the writing of Joseph. Of course one doesn't need a writing analysis to realize that. All they have to do is compare D&C 132 to Joseph's other revelations or sermons and it is very clear it didn't come from him. Or one would just have to know that Joseph was a student of the Bible and as such wouldn't make such a stupid mistake as to list Isaac as a polygamist as the author of D&C 132 foolishly did. Joseph also wrote or translated, however you want to look at it, the BOM and wouldn't have been foolish enough to contradict Jacob 2. He also had already called Emma an elect lady in a previous revelation and if he did what is alleged he wouldn't have had the marriage we have documentation they had. Then there is the fact that Emma herself said she never heard of any such revelation until it was published in the SEER in 1853. And you have the testimonies of Joseph and Hyrum to the City Council saying that was not what they presented to the High Council and you have those who were present confirming that what Joseph and Hyrum said was true.
Sorry but your affidavits from a group of men who hated Joseph and wanted to destroy him doesn't trump the facts I listed above. William Law had started his own church, Joseph Jackson, lol, wanted to wipe out the Smith family, all of the Expositor men were ex'd, all had an axe to grind and knowing what I do about them, I wouldn't take a single one of them at their word. LOL!
@@randyjordan5521 Enid DeBarthe did a writing analysis and found D&C 132 to not be the writing of Joseph. Of course one doesn't need a writing analysis to realize that. All they have to do is compare D&C 132 to Joseph's other revelations or sermons and it is very clear it didn't come from him. Or one would just have to know that Joseph was a student of the Bible and as such wouldn't make such a stupid mistake as to list Isaac as a polygamist as the author of D&C 132 foolishly did. Joseph also wrote or translated, however you want to look at it, the BOM and wouldn't have been foolish enough to contradict Jacob 2. He also had already called Emma an elect lady in a previous revelation and if he did what is alleged he wouldn't have had the marriage we have documentation they had. Then there is the fact that Emma herself said she never heard of any such revelation until it was published in the SEER in 1853. And you have the testimonies of Joseph and Hyrum to the City Council saying that was not what they presented to the High Council and you have those who were present confirming that what Joseph and Hyrum said was true.
Sorry but your affidavits from a group of men who hated Joseph and wanted to destroy him doesn't change the facts I listed above. William Law had started his own church, Joseph Jackson, lol, wanted to wipe out the Smith family, all of the Expositor men were ex'd, all had an axe to grind and knowing what I do about them, I wouldn't take a single one of them at their word. LOL!
@@nostoppingit7243 I found out recently that Robert D Foster, who was involved with William Law and the Nauvoo Expositor, and notarized those affidavits, years later wrote to Joseph Smith III that he believed Joseph was a true prophet and never said he thought he was a polygamist. He and Joseph had disagreements which led him to take W. Law’s side, but he seems to have regretted this later on. It’s amazing how so many documents and letters are only now surfacing.
Interesting
WOW! Hales can say Joseph is a fallen prophet, but if Michelle says Brigham Young may have been one, she should be excommunicated. This guy thinks people aren't smarter than him. Self-deluded is an understatement!
He didn't say he personally thought Joseph was a fallen prophet!
Why do people twist my words? As I said above, I believe Joseph Smith was not perfect, but he was always worthy to be God's prophet (and he was), and he practiced polygamy.
@@brianhales8971to confirm, Jospeh lied to people, committed adultery, and engaged in unlawful sexual behavior with young women? This is what you’re defending?
Why can’t you try and defend Jospeh and take ALL contemporary evidences before Jospeh’s death and believe his words only? There is NO evidence he practiced plural marriage that is contemporary from his journals or any where else.
Now we have a church that has corrupted the truth and cannot back out of it without saying they made a mistake and lied about it. Repentance is much better than the alternative:
“O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms and pervert the right way of the Lord, Woe, woe, woe be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell.”
@@brianhales8971, If he was a prophet and said he was not a polygamist, why do you contradict the words of God's prophet. Especially since you are calling Michelle out here for disagreeing with statements made my early prophets. You yourself are contradicting statements made by the founding prophet about his own view on marriage. That doesn't seem messed up to you?
@@brentlarsen4414 You have a great point there. Every Mormon who agrees that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy is forced to also admit that he was a liar. In the church's gospel topics essay on plural marriage, which Brian says he helped to write, Smith's lies are called "carefully worded denials." Well ya know, they're still lies.
37:00 Brian’s mental gymnastics to turn what is a very clear statement condemning polygamy into something that serves his own purpose is pretty disappointing.
For someone who claims they are a scholar to act like this is a slap in the face to actual scholars. He immediately loses all credibility. Why would he do such a thing? Yikes. Not a good look for apologists.
Though i believe J Smith certainly did do polygamy; Sorry Brian, the mental gymnastics that you have to conjure , I believe you're not even aware of. It's like you're on autp pilot to try and make it work… Which at times doesn't.
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
I just made a similar comment before reading the comments. I’m an active member and don’t feel like I’m in a cult. But Brian makes me wonder sometimes.
Stop resorting to hyper emotionalism to make your points...and consider the facts, the documentary evidence, from many sources. Fact: your position requires hundreds of people who said Joseph personally taught it to them, to be liars. A Mathmatically improbable conspiracy!
@@Sayheybrother8 good point.I changed my comment above to make it a little softer
@@truthseeker4286 I don’t believe you need to adjust it’s Brian and other cultish like believers who should soften their approach to belie.
Haha Brian sounding desperate. Hard to watch
I don’t think Brian likes “gutsy” and bold women, he is more obsessed with blind obedience of leaders than factual information, he’s been told the “end game” many times and still doesn’t get it, yet another distraction from the conversation of historical facts that are hard to look at
1/ A couple church leaders living now ...Oaks and Nelson are married and sealed to more than one wife. (unfortunately without the first wife's consent.... which is a very disappointing topic by itself. Right or wrong , This means that our leaders definitely believe in plural wives into the eternities.
2/ I do appreciate Brians research. It appears, however Brian will say anything to support church leaders, even if it requires mental gymnastics, that he does not have the objectivity to see. And too often apologists have to give up their own integrity and honesty to make conflicting prophet statements work. I'm not saying Brian is necessarily doing this on purpose.
3/ Jesus totally condemned Pro marriage in the book of Mormon for at least two chapters long. Yet Jesus in the DnC Justifies David Solomon, having many wives and concubines. And that's a real problem.
4/ I remember, a lecturer at BYU education week say to the audience in "Hushed Tones"
The reason we don't talk about heavenly mother is because there's many heavenly mothers for this earth.
The thought of silent, mothers in heaven that can't be acknowledged, nor given names, nor prayed to sort of makes me sick.
5/ the order and goal of the early churches Temple marriage ceremony was exactly for plural marriage.
And the verbiage used today is the same . Hmmm.
" I do appreciate Brians research. It appears, however Brian will say anything to support church leaders, even if it requires mental gymnastics"
Some of you people here treat Brian as some sort of a villain who has made stuff up about Joseph Smith and polygamy. Are you not aware that this material comes from historical documents written by the eyewitness participants, and much of it has been in the public domain for decades, if not more than a century? Fawn Brodie included a lot of material about Joseph's polygamy, and listed 48 possible plural wives, in her 1946 bio of Smith. Todd Compton published a 788-page book re: Smith's known plural wives in 1998. Brian has published his books and built his websites in order to provide a comprehensive treatment of a huge aspect of Mormon history which had never been done before. Until recent years, church leaders have been reticent to say much of anything about Smith's polygamy practice because it is so shameful and embarrassing. At least Brian is trying to shine a little more light on the subject.
As for Brian's "mental gymnastics," of course every believing Mormon who concedes that Smith started and practiced polygamy have to engage in mental gymnastics. But it is a fact that Brian's take on these issues is the same as current LDS church leaders.
@@randyjordan5521 true
I am disappointed that Michelle Stone was not invited on as a guest and interviewed by Steven. And I am VERY disappointed that Brian Hale was allowed to spend nearly a half hour passive aggressively personally attacking Michelle. Why was Michelle's faithfulness to LDS leadership even a topic of conversation?
I've been studying Joseph Smith's life for 50 years, and I do NOT think Joseph was monogamous, but neither do I think the traditiional LDS narrative is supported by the evidence. Michelle's research is so impressive, and it seems that too many of those dismissing her podcasts are doing so without listening to them.
Steve has continually said that Mormon Book Reviews is a place where ALL the voices of the Restoration can be heard.
Michelle Stone is one of those voices. HER voice should be heard here.
One more comment. Michelle and others doing what she is doing have helped me stay in the church.
When I was studying my way out of the church almost 30 years ago, a friend of mine who had already concluded that Mormonism is false told me a great line: "Some people would rather believe a beautiful lie than the cold, hard, ugly truth."
@@randyjordan5521 That really was a great line but for now I plan to stay for a few reasons.
@@icecreamladydriver1606 Oh, you're welcome to stay Mormon if that's what floats your boat. My agenda here is simply to tell true facts about Mormon history. After I learned the true facts, my conscience would not allow me to remain a Mormon.
To me this is simple, Brian believes prophets trump scripture. Michelle believes the reverse.
[copy] Russell M. Nelson: "Questions frequently asked relate to polygamy. . . . Simply answered: yes, we did, and no, we don't. Both periods were initiated by divine direction." (Teachings of Russell M. Nelson, p. 276.)
But yes, we still do in the temple. President Nelson is sealed to multiple women
I say this with all the love I can muster: No, she does not. Section 132 is scripture. You can't ignore the primary scripture dealing with a given issue and then say that you are going by scripture in your evaluation of said issue. I am happy to fellowship with those who believe the way they want to believe on this issue, but both the latter-day prophets and the latter-day scriptures permit plural marriage in certain, select situations determined by the Lord.
@@brianhales8971Brian, if you ever get the chance to listen to a Scientologist use what they call “Source.” They are the words of L Ron Hubbard and they have an answer for everything. If you contradict the source even of the source is a contradiction you’ll be excommunicated. It just sounds cultish and I don’t use that word flippantly but as a proper description for the type of comment you’ve made here.
@@kp6553I agree. Just don’t use the same scripture, D&C 132 to teach monogamous eternal marriage. It isn’t about that at all. It was never intended to teach that it was to teach about having multiple wives and concubines as Joseph testified to in his journal the night he gave the revelation.
Dr.Brian is way way too condemning of Michelle. She presents 1st hand evidence that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy. I tend to believe what she presents over what he says. Everyone is free to believe what they want but if Joseph fathered children with all the supposed sex he had with all these “wives” then there wouldn’t be this discussion.
Hi Janetdouglas. As you know, we cannot prove a negative. That is, it is impossible to prove something did NOT happen (sorry to shout). So Michelle could not prove that "Joseph didn't practice polygamy." Michelle just attacks evidence that supports that he did in the hope that the audience will disregard that evidence. If we are transparencyists, we will consider all the documents rather than ignoring large numbers by labeling them second-hand, biased, or late. Historians call the process "critical sources analysis." It is part of approaching a topic with transparency.
" She presents 1st hand evidence that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy."
No she didn't. She only cherry-picks accounts from people who had not been taught about polygamy from Joseph or Hyrum. There are numerous accounts from people who heard it from them first-hand. Hyrum Smith presented the revelation before the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843, to seek their vote to sustain it as church doctrine. Six of the men who were present in that meeting testified that the document which Hyrum read is the same as D&C 132 today. One of those High Councilors, Austin Cowles, swore a legal affidavit relating that event on May 4, 1844:
" In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah."
Also, whether Joseph Smith fathered children with any of his plural wives does not negate the mountain of evidence which shows that he originated and practiced polygamy.
@janetdouglas5098 “She presents first hand evidence that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy”. That statement is nonsensical because it’s referring to a negative. You can’t prove a negative. Secondly, she ignores the hundreds of pieces of first-hand evidences that proves he did practice polygamy. She cherry picks things to get you to believe her thesis, and ignores 99% of the other evidence that goes against her thesis. She would flunk a college science or analytics class with that approach. It reminds me of the way flat earthers convince people that the earth is flat.
@@chubbuck35 "she ignores the hundreds of pieces of first-hand evidences that proves he did practice polygamy."
Michelle has been doing that throughout her video series. Michelle wants to believe in a Disney fairy tale prince version of Joseph Smith who was practically perfect in every way. So she simply rejects every historical source which refutes her naive chosen view. Her tactic requires her to attack the character and motives of dozens of first-hand eyewitness participants in the events, whether they were Smith's closest and most loyal followers or his most vocal opponents. IOW, she is a completely deluded fanatic whose brain exists in an alternate reality.
"She would flunk a college science or analytics class with that approach."
Indeed, as well as a history or law class. I've told Michelle numerous times that there is as much evidence to conclude that Smith started polygamy, from a wide variety of sources, as there is to prove pretty much any other fact about any historical figure's life. Michelle might as well try to argue that the Confederate states won the Civil War as to continue arguing that Smith had nothing to do with polygamy.
Is Brian Hales appears to be prosecuting a case of Apostasy against Michelle Brady Stone and in every point Brian takes Michelle's statements out of context, and I would ask Brian what is his end game in what he is doing here? Shame on you Brian Hales, shame, shame, shame.
How cheap! Having a conversation about someone without letting them be a part of it.
Brian’s presentation is kinda nasty towards Michelle - it’s all ad hominem. Brian is what he decries, an amateur historian slipping all over historical evidence to his own contrivances
Have you perchance visited his websites and studied his historical documentation?
@@randyjordan5521 yes I’ve been to his website. In the surface it’s a good resource, but he presents some things that are not accurate as facts. Having the original sources in one thing, correctly interpreting them is another.
@@Heartsinmelody Great! Kindly list all of the items on Brian's website which you believe to be false.
I have a direct question for Brian. He mentioned several times that he didn’t like polygamy in this life. What might eternal polygamy look like? How will it be better or different than this life?
We will be celestial beings. So none of this human awkwardness or jealousies will exist. If you are in the Celestial room you feel nothing but love and there is a immense relief from worldly concerns around relationships.
When Brian said that, he was just expressing his loyalty to church leaders and the canonized doctrine as it currently exists.
@topazblahblah then the door gets opened to plurality of gods which becomes another sticking point that contradicts the bible and even the bofm (before changes of the 1830 1st addition), that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Father. One God.
Thank you Steven for addressing this important topic! I love your humble non judgmental way of seeking for truth.
Terrible form to have Brian on to talk about Michelle stone.
I’ve listened to Michelle a handful of times & I know her objective, it’s not that complicated, if you don’t then you might not be paying attention as well as you think.
Here's the problem. The church taught that Joseph had a monogamous marriage, with Emma being his only wife for a good century (Teaching of the prophets manual). It wasn't until the 2013 time frame that the church was challenged about hiding church history that it has come out with more transparency. (Gospel Topic Essays). Brian fails to play the video clips of Elder Cook stating that modern church leaders say that it is no longer necessary to practice plural marriage for exhalation. Completely contrary to the words of our earlier prophets. He also cut the recording of President Oaks so we do not have the full context. Shameful how you belittle Michelle Stone for her efforts to uncover truth when it is obvious that so much has been hid or covered up!
Wow, so well said. Thank you. however I'm not too fond of Michelle's Claims
"Here's the problem. The church taught that Joseph had a monogamous marriage, with Emma being his only wife for a good century (Teaching of the prophets manual)"
That simply isn't true. The Utah LDS church has always accepted and taught that Smith started and practiced polygamy. In 1869, because the RLDS church began claiming that Smith didn't start it, dozens of Utah Mormons swore affidavits attesting that Joseph Smith had introduced plural marriage to them. In addition, church historian Andrew Jenson made the first scholarly attempt to list Smith's plural wives, and he came up with 27. You can find mention of Smith's polygamy, and some of his plural wives, in church magazines and other publications over the years, Eliza R. Snow and Zina Huntingdon being two examples.
The church did, however, not say much about the details of Smith's practice, because they know that the more details church members learn about it, the more of them will leave the church.
As for the "Teachings of the Prophets" manual, church curriculum writers purposely omitted any mention of plural marriage from both the Joseph Smith and Brigham Young lesson manuals. The church-produced movie "Joseph Smith-Prophet of the Restoration" also did not mention it. That was intentionally done as an act of propaganda. As you note, the church has been forced to be more forthcoming about polygamy since those items were produced because of the increasing knowledge of the facts as published by legitimate scholars. Before that, the church was hoping that they could just sweep polygamy under the rug and make it disappear.
@randyjordan5521 Wrong! Stop it! It's called gas lighting. Never ever taught in seminary, Sunday school, young men's or women's, relief society OR priesthood, institute before 2013 when the church was backed in the corner. Just stop it! The church leaders deceived, changed and covered up much of the uncomfortable history. It took the Boyd K Packer approach to only teach the feel good history. If the church really cared it would apologize. It only cares about its reputation and money! It really ticks me off the playing dumb gas lighting!
I want to disagree with you, just a little. I think you were fair and even-handed in your treatment of Michelle. I don't think Brian was. At the 23 minute mark, he made the comment about polygamy that the bible doesn't condone it. How is that different from saying that it was Abram's wife, not God who gave Hagar to Abram?
At 33 minutes and 44 seconds there is a chart. Name 13 in column 1 and name 14 in column 4 (Sarah Ann Whitney) are the same. Name 8 in column 2 and name 7 in column 3 (John Benbow) are the same. Is this two, three, or four people? In your opinion, is Brian Hales attempting to push the church into excommunicating Michelle Brady Stone?
I think that from Brian's point of view, he's worried about people preaching false doctrine and leading people astray. Just as the opposite view occurs.
I imagine the duplicate names are actually two different historical documents that originate from the same person, and no one cleaned up the final list to only have one of each name. or, just him copy pasting the list and forgetting to edit it. I think its reasonable he's not trying to inflate the numbers. Personally, I can give him the benefit of the doubt (in this thing).
As far as excommunication, I think he does believe that she has crossed the line and must be excommunicated in order to properly repent, and he just wants to have it happen sooner than later so her arguments can be dismissed as being from an ex Mormon with an ax to grind.
To be fair, in his flavor of orthodoxy, you are supposed to follow the prophet no matter what. Its what my Grand parents believed. My parents mostly still do. The idea that a vote of anything other than sustaining the brethren and everything they recommend is apostacy is well accepted by a lot of members of the church. Even if in theory we all get to pray about every issue and make up our own minds, the idea that you would receive contradictory inspiration or revelation is ... "what Hyrum Page did, and he was wrong!!!!"
Anyway, its a complicated problem. Its not like the priesthood ban. Doctrinally, nothing had to change when they extended the priesthood to Black Men. Other than giving them the priesthood, and telling people to get over it. It took a while, but it didn't connect to other doctrines in painful ways. But, if polygamy is not something God commanded, then the whole eternal marriage sealing "theory"/doctrine needs to be revisited and conceptionally renegotiated, and that's gonna take some time.
@@truthseeker4286 If he's so worried about it maybe he should stop throwing gas on the fire. Stop talking about her claims if he's so worried.
" In your opinion, is Brian Hales attempting to push the church into excommunicating Michelle Brady Stone?"
Whether the church exes her or not, she clearly opposes the canonized doctrine. In the temple endowment ceremony, you covenant to obey the law of the gospel as contained in the scriptures. D&C 132 is in the scriptures. So she has in effect apostasized. Her belief that Joseph Smith didn't start polygamy, and that polygamy is wrong, is beside the point. There's that saying, "The boss may not always be right, but he'll always be the boss." Michelle Stone is not the boss of the LDS church. If she opposes polygamy, then she is free to join the RLDS church or quit Mormonsim altogether.
@@truthseeker4286 "I think that from Brian's point of view, he's worried about people preaching false doctrine and leading people astray."
Not just false doctrine, but also false HISTORY. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.
It’s concerning how upset Brian is about Michelle having a different opinion than the leadership of the church. He’s implying subtly here but more directly on her podcast that she should be excommunicated. I’m an outsider and I literally cannot understand why he is so afraid? He was so condescending to her on her podcast as well as threatening her church membership.
Also as an outsider, I can accept with no problem that Joseph did practice polygamy BUT the idea that it’s from God is really awful. Nowhere in the Bible did God ever command or endorse polygamy. It was a cultural practice of the day. Just because Abraham did it, does not mean God endorsed it or commanded him to.
The fact of the matter is though, that Joseph adamantly fought polygamy. The only evidences that he practiced it or endorsed it were created by liars AFTER he was dead and wasn't there to defend his own beliefs. He made it abundantly clear during his lifetime, all the way up until he was killed, that he despised polygamy and had nothing to do with it and anyone who did preach, teach or practice it were apostate.
Hi, I don't think I said anything about "threatening" Michelle's Church membership. That is none of my business, but resides with her local leaders. My concern is the confusion she creates by publicly disagreeing the our prophets and scriptures and gently mocking our current apostles.
@@brianhales8971 I do think it’s implied in both conversations (more so in the one on her podcast). I believe she (and probably others in her camp) are coming from the place of disagreement such as it was to disagree with the priesthood ban. I’m sure looking back those who spoke publicly against that are now considered well regarded.
@@littleredhen3218 Because I admittedly don’t know anything about this topic and as someone who is non-LDS with zero affiliation with the restoration, I can’t confidently take a side nor does it impact me . I’m more academically interested. I tend to go with Steven when he said if he doesn’t know he goes with the consensus. However, I appreciate the different perspectives and it is fascinating to me how there is so much disagreement on something that truthfully in the grand scheme of history happened recently.
@brianhales8971 Confusion comes when people spin narratives and leave out vital pieces of the puzzle. It comes when allegations made against a man contradict what is known of that man. Confusion comes when you have scriptures that contradict each other but are supposedly coming from the same source. Michelle bringing to light vital facts that others, like yourself, have left out is not a point of confusion.
What is confusing is when someone who has done as much research as you have says that it would be scary if we didn't have any contemporaneous accounts but then says, with a straight face, thankfully we have the accounts of John C. Bennett and William law. Your research would make you very aware of who those two men are and how little credibility they have yet you present them to the listeners as though they are above reproach.
Did Brian Hales not change the name of his website? If he says she needs to fully support current prophets and apostles, then why not change his blogs name? Wasn’t it RMN that said going by mormon is a win for Satan? Or am I misunderstanding?
That would mean all the members of the early church were contributing to Satan’s victory. They often referred to themselves as Mormons.
“It [the Book of Mormon] is strictly proper, does not contain a word about materialism and polygamy - in fact, more than one wife is strictly forbidden even in the Book of Doctrines and Covenants…” - Richard F. Burton, Writer (1862)
“It may be well here to remark, for the benefit of the tender-footed upon this subject, that polygamy is no part of the Mormon religion, so far as the same has any history, and can be distinguished from the personal edicts of Brigham Young. It is not only not permitted but explicitly condemned in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrines and Covenants” - C. Van Valkenburg, Attorney (1866)
“Polygamy is a recent feature in the Mormon religion, and was added by Brigham Young after Joseph Smith's death. Before that, it was regarded as an "abomination." This verse from the Mormon Bible occurs in Chapter II. of the book of Jacob.” - Mark Twain, Author (1871)
“The Book of Mormon itself inveighed against the sin of polygamy. True it is that Brigham Young taught that these denunciations of the book were leveled at the Indians - the Lamanites. But I confess to an utter inability to interpret human language if this be correct. In chapter 1, Book of Jacob, in speaking of the people of Nephi, the favored people, they are arraigned for growing hard of heart and indulging themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old, desiring "many wives and concubines," and also as did Solomon, David's son; and in chapter 2, same book, after alluding to the filthiness evidently of the Indian tribes…How it can be that the Lamanites please God in sticking to one wife and the Nephites displease him by imitating David and Solomon in multiplying wives, and yet polygamy is to be a crown of righteousness in the teachings of the Angel Mormon, challenges my power of comprehension. It requires transfiguration to do so.” - Judge John F. Philips (1894)
@@Dont-Be-Abi-Yussif All of those authors were non-Mormons who were not aware of the historical record which shows that Joseph Smith started and practiced polygamy.
@@randyjordan5521 LOL Valkenburg actually lived in Utah for 2 years and got all the first hand insider scoop of what was actually going on. She writes extensively about it and even knew the women who later (yes, years later and all around the same time) claimed to be the prophet’s wives. Twain heard all the exact same things from Utah residents that were willing to spill the beans. Judge John Philips actually observed the cross examination of many of those claimed wives after the fact.
*Hallelujah!!!! The daily jesus devotional has been a huge part of my transformation, God is good 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻was owning a loan of $47,000 to the bank for my son's brain surgery (David), Now I'm no longer in debt after I invested $12,000 and got my payout of m $270,500 every months,God bless Chloe Linda Henderson🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸..*
Hello how do you make such monthly ?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down 🤦 of myself because of low finance but I still believe in God.
Thanks to my co-worker (Alex) who suggested Ms Chloe Linda Henderson.
She's a licensed broker in the states 🇺🇸
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
Wow that's nice She makes you that much!! please is there a way to reach her services, I work 3 jobs and trying to pay off my debts for a while now!! Please help me.
Brian is a walking, talking depiction of the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy.
“I have a lofty degree and established career built on supporting and providing cover for the same people paying my bills. Who you goona believe? Me? Or your own lying eyes?”
What you're telling us here is that you haven't studied the original sources for yourself, and you trust wholeheartedly in what Michelle Stone says on these issues.
When she said "magically" she didn't mean as in magic. Come on.
She meant "magically" as if to infer that Brigham wrote the revelation and pulled it out of his desk at an opportune time. Michelle's theory is utterly wrong, because numerous people in Nauvoo who had been informed about polygamy from Joseph and Hyrum Smith quoted specific verbiage from the revelation when relating their accounts.
Also, Hyrum Smith presented the revelation before the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843, to seek their vote to sustain it as church doctrine. Six of the men who were present in that meeting testified that the document which Hyrum read is the same as D&C 132 today. One of those High Councilors, Austin Cowles, swore a legal affidavit relating that event on May 4, 1844:
" In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah."
Because Smith's "revelation on celestial marriage" was known about and was published in newspapers during Joseph Smith's life, Michelle's theory that Brigham Young or someone else wrote it after Smith's death is utterly wrong.
@@randyjordan5521 Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God? Read this from Jacob2...
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Do you suppose that Joseph knew that scripture? What you are suggesting is that Joseph was a fallen prophet. I don't buy anything about church history, especially concerning Joseph, from the time of his death. Willard Richards and John Taylor both lied about things that happened at the time Joseph was murdered and the church no longer accepts that the story of the watch being shot was true. It has been proven that It wasn't possible for the watch to be in as good of condition as it was in if it had been hit by a musket ball. So he lied. Willard Richards said that he used his cane to knock down the the muzzles of the muskets yet there are no marks on his cane to indicate such. The church is riddled with coverups, half truths and outright lies so I can't trust anything from any of them.
The crux of this whole matter is that Presidents of the Church and Apostles of the Lord are human. They can make decisions based on their own faulty understanding. When they bear witness and Testify of Jesus Christ they are fulfilling their calling. When they are preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ they are fulfilling their calling. When they are admonishing us and strengthening the members they are doing their calling. When they are administering in ordinances established by God, they are doing their calling. But when they seek to gratify their own lusts....that's not their calling. When they exercise unrighteous dominion....again not their calling. If they are perpetuating false doctrine that the Lord has identified as false doctrine.... not their calling. When they seek to destroy the agency and freedom of the children of God. not their calling. Obedience to tyranny is NOT virtuous. Polygamy is tyrannical. It is a trap designed by the enemy. No freedom. No unity in marriage or with God. No promises from God. Nothing gives people a sicker feeling than abominations and whoredom. Women in the early days of the church suffered terribly in plural marriage. This is not what God had intended for His daughters. He says so in the Book of Mormon.
Joseph Smith said, “We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them even if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.” -Joseph Smith, (Jr. Joseph Smith, the Millennial Star, Vol 14, # 38, pages 593-595)
"Polygamy is tyrannical. It is a trap designed by the enemy."
Well, seeing as how Joseph Smith started polygamy in the church, I assume that you agree that he is the enemy.
@@randyjordan5521 you are every bit as thick as Brian Hales. Joseph Never Started Polygamy! End of story! Polygamy is Brigham Young's baby. It is his abomination. He will be squarely held accountable. Good grief! That is the whole point of this movement, to bring to light ALL the proof that Joseph FOUGHT POLYGAMY! HE DESPISED IT! It's strictly an abomination and whoredom that fought adamantly till the day he died. Every false witness attributing polygamy and wives to Joseph Smith LIED.
@@randyjordan5521 Joseph did not start polygamy. There is so much proof to that point. You must be willing to first: have a desire to know the truth. Second: do the research. I think you have already made up your mind due to some kind of hate in your heart for either God, Joseph, the Church or some other conflict in your heart. It's not that hard to ask God, "What is the truth really?" He will show you if you are sincere and humble like a little child to know. God will reveal it to you. He upbraideth not.
@@littleredhen3218 "Joseph did not start polygamy. There is so much proof to that point. You must be willing to first: have a desire to know the truth. Second: do the research."
I responded to your post yesterday, but I don't see my reply here, so I'll try again. The historical evidence which shows that Joseph Smith started polygamy in Nauvoo is exhaustive and conclusive. NO legitimate historians think otherwise. The first reports of Smith's polygamy practice began to be published in newspapers and legal affidavits in 1842---two years before Smith's death. Everyone who was in Nauvoo and learned of polygamy said that they heard it directly from Joseph or Hyrum Smith.
Joseph dictated the "revelation on celestial marriage" to his secretary, William Clayton, on July 12, 1843. Both Joseph and Clayton mentioned that event in their personal journals. One month later, on August 12, 1843, Hyrum Smith presented the revelation to the Nauvoo High Council to seek their vote to sustain it as official church doctrine. Three men present in that meeting opposed it: William Marks, Austin Cowles, and Leonard Soby. Cowles joined forces with Smith's former counselor in the church presidency, William Law, to start a movement to force Smith to resign as church president so that a caretaker committee could reform the church and abolish Joseph's plural marriage practice. On May 4, 1844, Cowles filed a legal affidavit in which he testified of what Hyrum had read in that High Council meeting:
" In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counsellor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws. And further deponent saith not. AUSTIN COWLES."
Many years after Joseph's death, anti-polygamy RLDS apologists concocted the theory that Brigham Young had composed the "revelation" after Joseph's death, in Utah. In response, several more former Nauvoo high councilors filed legal affidavits which affirmed Austin Cowles'. Here are two of them:
"Be it remembered that on this fifteenth day of June, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county, David Fullmer, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon his oath saith, that on or about the 12th day of August, A.D. 1843, while in meeting with the High Council [he being a member thereof] in Hyrum Smith's brick office, in the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, Dunbar Wilson made inquiry in relation to the subject of plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those rumors, and he wanted to know what it was. Upon which Hyrum Smith stepped across the road to his residence, and soon returned bringing with him a copy of the revelation on celestial marriage given to Joseph Smith July 12, 1843, and read the same to the High Council, and bore testimony to its truth. The said David Fullmer further saith that, to the best of his memory and belief, the following named persons were present: William Marks, Austin A. Cowles, Samuel Bent, George W. Harris, Dunbar Wilson, William Huntington, Levi Jackman, Aaron Johnson, Thomas Grover, David Fullmer, Phineas Richards, James Allred and Leonard Soby. And the said David Fullmer further saith that William Marks, Austin A. Cowles and Leonard Soby were the only persons present who did not receive the testimony of Hyrum Smith, and that all the others did receive it from the teachings and testimony of the said Hyrum Smith; and further, that the copy of said revelation on celestial marriage published in the Deseret News extra of September 14, A.D., 1852, is a true copy of the same.
"David Fullmer."
Also:
"Be it remembered that on the 23rd day of March, in the year 1886, before, Joshua W. Roberts, notary public for the City of Beverly, County of Burlington, State of New Jersey, Leonard Soby, of said city, county and state, was by me duly sworn, and upon his oath saith:
"That on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, I was a resident of Nauvoo, Hancock County, State of Illinois, and being a member of the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was present at a meeting of said council at the time herein above stated; Thomas Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fullmer, William Huntington and others; when Elder Hyrum Smith, after certain explanations, read the revelation on celestial marriage.
"I have read and examined carefully said revelation, since published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of said Church, and say to the best of my knowledge and belief it is the same, word for word, as the revelation then read by Hyrum Smith.
"The deponent says further, that the revelation did not originate with Brigham Young, as some persons have falsely stated, but was received by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and read in the High Council by his authority as a revelation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
End quotes. When you tell me to "do the research," I hope this helps you understand that I have already done that. I've known this material for 20-25 years. That is why I am on this comments section trying to clear up people's misconceptions and refuting the falsehoods that people with agendas have told them.
@@randyjordan5521 yeah all of your points have been debunked as false witnesses. Try to consider there just might be a motive behind the entire conspiracy. Go back to the drawing board. All of your points you make have a perfectly plausible explanation and evidence that disproves them. They are the old narrative that was concocted by the enemy and conspiring men. Time for deconstructing your entire desired belief system. Start by asking yourself why you want to believe the worst about Joseph Smith. If you are presented with evidence that is contrary to your desired belief system, Look at it. Consider it. Think about what makes more sense. Be willing to want truth
Soften your heart.
Wow, I’m so disappointed in your deception from your title. Have you even taken the time yourself to watch Michelle’s videos in their entirety? I’ve appreciated your channel in the past and I think it’s now time for me to unfollow as I’m shocked that you would be so deceptive by making it seem like you invited her on your channel to discuss this topic with Brian and yet it’s just a one sided bash show. I hope you learn from this and do better moving forward.
The Book of Mormon was written specifically for our time. If polygamy were from God, it seems to me that instead of Jacob's masterful sermon preaching against the "abomination" of polygamy, we would have been given an entire chapter on how to properly commit adultery.
Totally agree!!
Very good point
Pay attention to what Dallin Oakes and Russ Nelson have been saying ---- even the mormon god Elohim is no longer a polygamist and has completely switched to monogamy. So Michelle is probably on to something.
Except the Book of Mormon makes an exception for polygamy AND Jacob addresses the abominable acts of David and Solomon. Nothing is said about the other Old Testament Polygamist, one of which Jacob is actually named after. If we compare the Book of Mormon to the Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 with the Bible we can find a consistency in only one way, for the Book of Mormon to be correct it must be lumping the 1 sin of David's where he has Uriah killed after having an affair with Bath Sheba with the multiple sins of Solomon where he marries many strange wives and begins to worship false gods.
The Old Testament states:
"5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (1 Kings 15:5)
Even when Nathan goes to rebuke David for his actions towards Uriah God acknowledges that he gave David Saul's wives:
"8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." (2 Samuel 12:8)
@@BrianTerrill I believe the following versus in Jacob zero in on exactly what Jesus was referring to:
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
The Lord clarifies, especially in verse 24 that he's referring to David and Solomon having many wives and concubines; not the 1sin you referred to.
These nephites were excusing themselves in having wives and concubines because that's what David and Solomon did . And the Lord, teaching the Nephites, told them not to excuse themselves, because what David and Solomon did, because it was absolutely abominable.
And to one of your points , actually yes indeed, the book of Mormon, completely contradicts DC 132 which says that the Lord gave David and Solomon their wives and concubines.
The Lord spent two chapters in the book of Mormon, talking about the abusive effects on women, to say the least, and this very sinful practice of multiple wives, etc. "Abominable" .
Which yes also contradicts to a degree the Bible.
here are other references of the Lord despising plural wives and concubines. Either 10:5,7, Mosiah 11:2, Jacob 2, 31-35 the Lord describes the abusive affects on women. Most of Jacob chapter 3 also describes the Lord’s wrath concerning plural marriage and concubines, and the affects on women.
And again Jacob 2:27 “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;”
Recall what a concubine is .
For the Savior to justify concubines according to D&C 132 is troublesome to say the least.
Jacob 2:30 has an apparent caveat for plural wives. “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things”. This scripture has been interpreted in different ways. Nevertheless it seems highly inconsistent with the many condemnations.
Early Presidents of the church married teenagers and had children when they were in their 50’s. Lorenzo Snow was 57 when he married Sarah Jensen 15 years old. Had first child less than a year later. In todays terms that is producing children with Mia Maids and Laurels.
So my point isn't whether or not Joseph Smith was practicing through marriage. It appears that he certainly did. my point is what the book of Mormon, if you believe it's historical, proclaims about the abomination of plural wives and concubines, as compared to the contradictory doctrine and covenants, and some references in the Old Testament.
So in a nutshell, with the above verses i quoted , how do you reconcile? I don't see a way to.
Also, when one reads all of DNC 132, they find that LDS believe in a cruel god that would destroy Emma for not supporting plural marriage, even with all the prior trials and child deaths , being driven and persecuted, etc.
One recalls promises in the doctrine covenants, that would still be given to Joseph, and Emma would be destroyed. But what actually happened? Emma was not destroyed , Joaeph was killed and was not given a hundred lands and wives and houses etc. Emma lived.
DNC is very troubling indeed. I predict that it will be de cannonized at some point. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.
How convenient that the old DnC 110 was deleted, and 132 added.
There seems to be a lot of males-entertaining-other-males sexual-fantasies behind ignoring the quality of evidence when it comes to accusing Joseph Smith of Polygamy. This was considered a "progressive" view of church history when I was growing up in the 1980s and frankly it sounds like same sex attraction today.
Ahhh, the joyous and simple gospel:
" And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little achild, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my adoctrine, and whoso bbuildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the cgates of hell shall not prevail against them.
40 And whoso shall adeclare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil.
With all the significant issues people are having problems with, and headaches about , do u think the church has gotten away from the above?
Yes. The church has gotten away from the doctrine of Christ. How many questions are asked in an interview in order to be baptized? Why on earth would someone need to have a testimony of a man when Christ is the keeper of the gate.
The Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel. We have reassuring words from Christ about the doctrine of Christ:
Verily, verily I say unto you that this is my doctrine. And whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establisheth it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil and is not built upon my rock, but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell standeth open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore, go forth unto this people and declare the words which I have spoken unto the ends of the earth.
@@mattenger7064 "why on earth would someone need a testimony of a man…"
So true and so asinine .
Also why did the church (men) suspend relief society while polygamy was practiced????? Where is the transparency and answers for that tidbit???????
So glad you reposted this. Michelle is struggling and I think her goal right now is to get as many followers as possible so she can take them out with her when the time comes. It is very sad. She has a lot of her liberal concerns wrapped up in her feelings and she takes it out on the leaders of the Church. She is mourning since 2020. And it doesn’t made what she is doing right. Just sad.
While I certainly don't agree with everything Michelle is does/says and at times question her motives, I am thankful for the many people she has woken up to the truth regarding polygamy.
I don't know anything about how much money people make from hosting RUclips channels and podcasts, but if Michelle has 17,000 subscribers, that might be a big motivation for her.
@@nostoppingit7243 Problem is, she isn't waking anybody up. She is misstating the facts to fit her agenda. She is able to mislead a lot people because they either haven't studied the issue for themselves, or they have mental issues which prevent them from processing information.
So sad that people commenting say that those who choose to believe that Joseph was not a polygamist have mental problems and can’t process information. Shame on you for judging others. We are all entitled to our own opinions and spiritual truth!
@@user-ut3zt2bq3r Those who choose to believe that Joseph was not a polygamist have mental problems and can’t process information. Their mental problem is that they worship Joseph Smith and cannot mentally process the documented historical facts. I do feel sorry for them a little, because the main reason is that so many Mormons, especially young ones, have never been taught the details of Smith's polygamy practice in church lessons, magazines, GA conference talks, etc. Young Mormons of today have grown up hearing about how devoted and loving Joseph was to Emma. "Ensign" articles include paintings of them dancing together, Joseph sitting beside her next to the fireplace at night, etc. The church-produced movie "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration" did not say one word about polygamy, even though it was the prime cause of his death.
So I can cut people a little slack for not knowing the details. However, when people like Brian Hales or me provide the authentic historical documentation, readers just need to suck it up and accept that this is the man that Joseph Smith was.
As for your comment "We are all entitled to our own opinions and spiritual truth!", one of my favorite quotes is Daniel Patrick Moynihan's "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts."
And the fact is, Joseph Smith originated polygamy in Mormonism. Everyone in Nauvoo who learned about polygamy said that they heard it from Joseph or Hyrum Smith---not from Brigham Young or anyone else. Every legitimate historian who has ever researched and published on the subject concurs that Joseph started it.
37:58 so many eye roll moments with Brian Hales
😅 And head shaking in disgust.
Oh for heaven sakes. How silly to try to use the wording in section 101 to make a claim for polygamy. He should know that that was how they talked in those days. Just like when Joseph made his denial about seven wives but that he could only "find but one". If Joseph was practicing polygamy and lying about it then he was the same kind of scoundrel that Brigham was.
Why did you not interview Michelle herself before interviewing her self appointed biggest critic?
Her arguments against Joseph Smith originating plural marriage as practiced by the early church are slam dunks.
Have either you or Brian ever listened carefully to her arguments?
I highly doubt it.
You both talk over and dismiss her.
Shame on you both. But especially Brian.
The church needs to remove all of his posts, defending plural marriage as practiced in the early church.
Like the priesthood ban, growing evidence shows it primarily was promoted by Brigham Young and church leaders after Joseph Smith. Who I highly respect and admire. But they were not perfect.
It's sad to say, but a stance such as Brian's is a spiritually bankrupt standpoint. When you have to rely upon what another man has said to support any sort of truth, then you do not have the truth for yourself. Any man can claim that anything is from God, and any man can quote that other man to support the claim that anything that man has said is evidence of truth and coming from God. The real question is how do we discern when a man is speaking by the gift and power of the spirit of God versus speaking from his own heart and vain imaginations. How can we know that when God's name is taken in vain and placed upon a doctrine such as plural marriage, how can we know that it is incorrect and false? That is more important than just taking a truth claim hook, line and sinker. That is blind faith, and it is foolishness.
The first time I came across Michelle, I instantly knew she was on the wrong track. Kudos to you Brian for being respectful and kind while defending truth. You are not a popular guy in the comments, but I say well done!
So Joseph is a liar and Brigham should have been the one seeing God and getting the plates.... wait, that didn't happen. Brigham was a witness to... nothing.
Propagandist usually aren't very popular with truth seekers.
Michelle is a few scriptures short of a quadruple combination.
@@user-ql2id3ml3i Brigham Young has nothing to do with the historical documentation which clearly shows that Joseph started polygamy in Nauvoo. if Brigham had never existed, those facts would not change. After Smith's death, if Brigham had decided to stop plural marriage instead of continuing it, that would not alter the facts that Smith had started it.
Discovering how wrong polygamy is, only builds faith and strengthens women. Polygamy being okay only tears women down. It actually strengthens men too, if men love God. How can a man truly love the Lord if he is busy filling up his house with his lusts??
Brian is a coward. I’d love to see him try to go head to head with Michelle debating the ARGUMENTS, not just appealing to his own authority or the brethren or “what has already been established.” If he had the guts to do that, she’d destroy him.
Brian: “It’s really not from magic!” He CLEARLY has not listened to hardly ANY of Michelle’s extremely thorough, detailed, TRANSPARENT episodes covering things IN DEPTH. You’re embarrassing yourself, Brian. Your points are super weak and you’d have realized that if you’d watched even a few of her episodes.
Your arguments are akin to Michelle grabbing one of your published volumes off the shelf, flipping through a few pages, picking a couple random, out-of-context sentences and attacking you personally… something a lazy learner would do.
And how does any LDS man explain Jacob 2:24 - the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, the early saints were told they didn’t use the book correctly???
Brian, last time you were on MBR you said “I wouldn’t want to practice polygamy here.” Could you kindly clarify how we are to understand “here” in context of your sentence?
It's likely that he means "here" on earth in this lifetime. But he is open -- as is the LDS church today -- to the possibility of polygamy in an afterlife, for example when widowers remarry here, both wives, if temple sealed, will be his wives in the "celestial kingdom."
@@djwolffrankfurt it is important to know that from him so we can know what his end goal is and whether or not there is a personal bias. What is Brian’s “end goal”? That’s only a fair question if he asks the same thing on this video.
So, basically, see how much of a transparencyist he actually is? I like that.
Well ya see Edmund ol' pal, celestial marriage as taught and instituted by Joseph Smith Jr. is an eternal principle. The whole idea is for the highest-ranking Mormon men---the "choice spirits"---to marry a lot of women. Those women will be those guys' wives when they reach the celestial kingdom, become gods of their own planets, and spend eternity producing spirit children which will be born to inhabit those planets. That is the very cruz of the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."
Joseph H. Jackson alluded to Smith's doctrine in his June 1844 account of his experiences with Smith:
"As I have mentioned the subject of spiritual wives, I will in this place, give the reader some idea of the system. The doctrine is called the "spirit of Elijah," and is kept a profound secret from the people at large, and is only permitted to be known to those, to whom it is given to know the "fullness of the kingdom," in other words, the choice spirits who surround Joe, and aid in carrying his secret measures. The doctrine is found on the 3d Chapter of Hosea, -- several passages from the writings of Solomon and David, and the passage "whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven." From these scripture passages, (with which I am not sufficiently familiar to quote) aided by revelation from Joe, as respects their meaning and construction, the doctrine is derived that there is no harm in a man having more wives than one, provided his extra wives are married to him spiritually. A spiritual wife is a woman, who by revelation is bound up to a man, in body parts and passions, both for this life and for all eternity; whereas the union of a carnal wife and her husband ceases at death. Whenever the scripture forbids a man from taking to himself more wives than one, Joe made it refer to carnal and not spiritual wives; and would frequently quote the writings of David and Solomon to prove his position. Having an explanation of the doctrine, let us see the application. Joe had in his employ certain old women, called "Mothers in Israel," such as Mrs. Tailor, old Madam Durfee, and old Madam Sessions, in whom the people have great confidence, but in fact, they are the most depraved hypocrits on Earth. If Joe wishes to make a spiritual wife of a certain young lady, he would send one of these women to her. The old women, would tell the young lady, that she had had a vision, in which it was revealed to her that she was to be sealed up to Joe, (or his friend as the case might be) as a spiritual wife, to be his in time and eternity."
So, Brian Hales and every other Mormon man who has ever been sealed to multiple women hold the heavenly hope of living the celestial eternal life and endless procreation of spirits that Joseph Smith Jr. taught and practiced.
@@randyjordan5521 Are you his spokesman? Let the man speak for himself.
We had to have polygamy. it's called the law of Sarah. It's part of the restoration of all things.
It's the first wife who chooses the other wives. God instituted it at that time because we had thousands of widows and orphans from mob violence, and farming was the only industry. Only one man in a hundred was authorized to procreate the rest shared their paycheck with the families who lost their husband's.
I hope people don't get tired of me commenting so much but I have a lot to say and if I break it down to several separate comments then that puts more comments on your video and gets you put out there more. Thanks for all you do.
If polygamy is Doctrine, than why did theLord not defend it and cause it to continue. If it is Doctrine explaine Jacob 2. If it is Doctrine then why did Brigham lie to women in Europe and only revel the truth when they were stuck in Utah. Does God not love his daughters
Current church leaders say joseph practice polygamy. all leaders have said he did from
Brigham Young to the present. Even the community of Christ has admitted it. Michelle is kicking against the pricks. The end game question by Brian is key. If the church is wrong about this then it is very wrong and the church is fallen- solution leave church membership. Michelle has asked the lord this (by her own words) and the spirit has told her do not leave. The church is still true! But I feel Michelle is missing that includes polygamy for a time. I believe she is sincere, I believe she is also fighting against false spirits that keep her confused on this and other issues. I support Brian and applaud his research. I believe he is being nice and fair to the best of his abilities and tries not to condemn.
Ya know, it really doesn't matter in this context whether Joseph or Brigham started polygamy, because it's the official position of the Utah church that Joseph started it. So if Michelle disbelieves the Utah church's stance, she can just leave it. In fact, if she continues to believe the way she does, I don't know why she should WANT to remain being a member.
That's cool, Brian only engaged with the actual subject for around 10 minutes of the actual content.
To be a transparencyist, just show the source material. You don't have to lecture us on what you are. Just be it.
The fact that Brian says he doesn’t like polygamy really tells me he doesn’t have faith in the Latter Day Saint faith. Brigham Young taught we all have to be polygamous, if not in practice then in spirit and heart. Brian admits he doesn’t like it. Tells me he’s just another cafeteria Mormon. Not willing or able to live and sustain the higher laws of God. Sad
It is not a higher law of God nor of God at all.
It is, according to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F Smith. However if you don’t believe in those men then I guess it really doesn’t matter
And yet you don't believe Joseph Smith,@@Bittersteel24 . He taught against plural marriage all of his adult life. That's why there are NO documents written by him stating otherwise, and there is no paper trail from Joseph Smith to section 132. That trail leads to William Clayton, and his "burned" document. Joseph excommunicated those he found claiming to have authority from him to take more wives.
@@Bittersteel24 That is a half truth. Hyrum and Joseph ONLY spoke out against polygamy period. The others you mentioned embraced it, just as they did the black priesthood ban, adam god and other things once Joseph was dead. There is no record I have seen at all where either of these two men spoke in favor of this sin. I 100% believe Joseph that he said he had only 1 wife. I also believe Hyrum who stated just before his death that polygamy or spiritual wifery was a damn fool doctrine that even the devil would be embarrassed of.
@@FleeingBabylon-NowI mean if you ignore every piece of evidence sure you can believe whatever you want. The fact of the matter is Joseph and Hyrum both had plural wives likes it’s not really up for debate, there is so much evidence for it. And your side of the debate really just has faith. Even the Law brothers ((very high ranking members that left because they didn’t agree)) said Joseph was doing it. Joseph’s own personal journal says he’s doing it. Literally every single person that was close to Joseph said he was doing it. I mean if you want to ignore all of the evidence and Joseph’s closest followers then sure you do you. Also spiritual wifey is not the same thing as Celestial Plural Marriage
Sorry but having a member of Skull and Bones/Owl and Key and a Rhodes Scholar at the head of the church just doesn't impress me.
This is a sensitive topic so I must state that I mean this respectively: note that although Brian says he does not like polygamy, he has been married three times (his late wives sadly passed away). I am curious whether he believes he will be married to all three in the afterlife? This assumes of course that he was sealed to all three - perhaps he was not, I don’t know.
That has been the LDS church's official policy for 180 years now. In 1998, the church began allowing women to be sealed to multiple men, as long as only one of the men is alive. The idea is to allow the women to choose which man they want to spend eternity with.
Brian makes a good point about Michelle being very emotional about this and that it can cause her to lose objectivity. I think he's right; as I have listened to some of Michelle's episodes, she seems so emotionally engaged in this and almost manic that I believe it devaluates her credulity .
"Brian makes a good point about Michelle being very emotional about this and that it can cause her to lose objectivity." how many pro-polygamists lose objectivity because of their emotional attachment to the institution that needs the traditional message of polygamy to be true for their institution to have authoritative value? Is Brian Hales objective? Is he as objective as he should be?
@truthseeker4286 I like you. Do we know each other IRL?
@@noctissky794 as I've watched Michelle she seriously seems manic and way overly emotional. Maybe there's some opposing viewpoints that rise to her hysterics, but i haven't seen any myself.
FYI i am no promoter of polygamy.
@@truthseeker4286 "hysterics" boy that's a word that's not used against women nearly enough. /s
@@annwood6812 I understand where you're coming from. But I feel Im accurately describing Michelle . If it was a man doing the same thing, I would say that same thing. Et al. It has been interesting and somewhat educational, listening to her; but as I've seen her let her emotion/hysterics get in the way, I see her at times as a false source for accuracy and truth despite her delightful countenance etc.
Brian still needs to acknowledge that D&C 132 is a letter specifically written in response to persuade Emma to accept plural marriage. It was in no way to reveal Monogamous Eternal Marriage . Full stop! It is used out of context to justify even temple marriage.
True, and the fact that it was addressed specifically to Emma makes the allegation that Brigham Young wrote it in 1852 absolutely nonsensical. Emma Smith had stayed in Nauvoo and was attending a Methodist church at the time, while Brigham was in Utah. Why on earth would he concoct a pointless scenario in which he commanded Emma to accept plural marriage, when she lived 2000 miles away and had nothing to do with Mormonism anymore?
@@randyjordan5521 I agree that it wasn’t written by Brigham. It was referred to in his own journal and others the very day it was presented to Emma. The issue is so much bigger than “did Joseph practice polygamy” i
Isn't it funny how you have two Joseph's who are cousins, one raised by Brigham and one by Joseph. One was a polygamist the other swore his father was not and he himself did not become a polygamist. The polygamist, by his own words said that he would lie anytime for the church (meaning the Church Brigham established) and he did. He even lied about the end of polygamy while he was supporting it. Yeah, it's all a lie.
No, it isn't funny at all, it is one of the most tragic parts of the whole thing. Joseph and Hyrum were very close and had Hyrum's son not been dragged to Utah their sons would have been close as well. Instead, Brigham and his lies put them at odds with each other. And you can't fault Hyrum's son for being a polygamist. His father died when he was 5 years old, then he was dragged to Utah by his mother who died when he was 13 and then he was basically raised and groomed by Heber and Brigham. Seems like a tender mercy in a way that polygamy was finally terminated under him.
Agreed.@@nostoppingit7243
You need to have Brian and Michelle on a podcast together
I'm happy to meet with her, but I hope somewhere along the way should could answer my question about her goals in her videocasting and how they relate to our current Church leaders (including Elders Cook and Oaks).
They were last year.
@@brianhales8971sounds like you’re itching to crucify….errrr, have her excommunicated, Brian.
@@brianhales8971 is it your goal to persuade the church to excommunicate Michelle Brady Stone?
@@brianhales8971 Her goal is clearly stated in her videos. It is to discover the moral and historical truth of polygamy. Her search thus far has led her to believe polygamy is not of God (from scriptural study) and that Joseph did not practice it (from historical study.) She is sincere seeker of the truth. If descendants were discovers from any of Joseph’s wives I honestly think she would change her opinion, but so far she thinks the evidence suggests he didn’t practice it.
How it relates to church leaders is obviously that they are mistaken about polygamy, just like past leaders have been mistaken about the Curse of Cain, Blood Atonement, Adam God, and a slew of other teachings since denounced.
Brian must be in the spectrum- it would be a decent explanation for why he is so cold and nasty to people like Michelle.
The Bible does condemn it.