Good presentation. Keep it going. One thing to add is the legalistic concept of presumption of innocence. I think the correct way to proceed is to examine each allegation of Smith’s polygamy one by one, and then determine whether that particular evidence supports that Smith was guilty of polygamy beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists, then that piece of evidence or allegation is either diminished or dismissed. If reasonable doubt occurs for all pieces of evidence, then Smith must be found innocent because he is not proven guilty of polygamy beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@IBelieveJoseph Yo, "IBelieveJoseph" dude: I wrote the following comment on the RUclips channel of your fellow Joseph Smith polygamy denier Jeremy Hoop. I hope that this helps you understand the situation a little better than you currently do. My comment is particularly applicable to you, seeing as how you titled your channel "IBelieveJoseph": Jeremy, here's the basic problem with your entire worldview and your videos: You assume that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he denied teaching and practicing polygamy and when he preached against it. If you just accept the obvious fact that Joseph lied about it, all of the contradictions that you talk about will be cleared up in your mind. Everybody needs to understand that about 120 people in Nauvoo had heard about polygamy during Joseph's lifetime, and every single one of them said that they learned it directly from Joseph or Hyrum. Not a single person in Nauvoo said that they learned about polygamy from Brigham Young, John C. Bennett, or anyone other than Joseph. That includes all of those who accepted polygamy and practiced it as well as all of those who opposed it and spoke out against it. Numerous polygamy initiates in Nauvoo, as well as other people who rejected the practice, stated that Joseph swore all of his inductees to vows of secrecy, obviously because polygamy was against the law of the land and the rules of the church. So all of your quoting of Joseph where he denied and forbade polygamy are of no value to getting to the truth of this issue. Putting Joseph's activities in context of the period, he introduced his temple endowment ceremony on May 4, 1842. Joseph borrowed from Masonic oaths in implementing his endowment ceremony as well as when inducting followers into his "Anointed Quorum" of close, loyal insiders who were also most of his early plural marriage inductees. On February 7, 1844, a poem was published, attributed to Wilson Law, which satirized Joseph's secret wife practice, and mentioned those vows of secrecy. It was titled "Buckeye's Lamentation For Want Of More Wives," and it included this verse: "This is the secret doctrine taught By Joe and the red rams- Although in public they deny- But then 'tis all a sham. They fear the indignation just, Of those who have come here, With hands thats clean and honest hearts, To serve the Lord in fear." Because this poem was published 4.5 months before Joseph's death, and it demonstrates that the oaths to deny polygamy existed, then that proves that all of Joseph's and Hyrum's denials of polygamy were falsehoods. I'll explain the secret oath situation with an analogy: The Sicilian Mafia, or La Cosa Nostra, came into the USA via Italian immigrants in the 1860s. They of course flourished in crime for decades, mostly in large cities. The Mafia swore inductees to vows of secrecy and loyalty. Members were instructed to not let anyone know that the organization even existed, upon pain of death. Even though law enforcement officials knew very well that the crime org existed, and was responsible for most of the organized crime in the USA, no Mafioso "ratted out" the group until mobster Joseph Valachi testified to it in 1963. Valachi described the membership initiation and loyalty oaths, the leadership organization, etc. That went a long way towards beginning to break down the Mafia's power which culminated in the takedown of godfather John Gotti in 1990. So when apologists like you, Michelle Stone, and other Joseph Smith polygamy deniers assert that most of the evidence that Joseph started polygamy wasn't known about until after his death---in your effort to prove that Joseph was not responsible for it---you must understand that the biggest reason that there wasn't MORE contemporaneous evidence was because all of Joseph's polygamy initiates had sworn to those vows of secrecy. But just as Joseph Valachi's testimony revealed many of the secrets and crimes of the Mafia, the testimonies of Joseph's fellow polygamists, as well as polygamy's opponents after his death confirmed that he was its originator and proponent. Of course, Joseph's polygamy opponents during his lifetime tried to persuade him to renounce and abolish the practice, and when he refused, they tried to publicly expose it, as William Law & Co. did by publishing the "Nauvoo Expositor." And Smith and his apologists responded by calling Law & Co. the sinners and liars. Smith did the same thing two years earlier by blaming the reports of his advances on Martha Brotherton, Nancy Rigdon, etc. on the sinner and liar John C. Bennett. That was Smith's modus operandi for fending off the accusations: simply accuse your accusers of the very sins and crimes that you are committing. So that's why we're here today 180 years after the events, and people like you still believe that John C. Bennett, William Law, Brigham Young, etc. were the "bad guys," and that Joseph and Hyrum were the only good and honest guys. As I wrote above, about 120 people in Nauvoo had learned of polygamy, and every one of them said that they learned it from Joseph or Hyrum. So it's simply intellectually dishonest to theorize that all of those people, who were on both sides of the issue, colluded with each other to concoct and spread a massive common lie blaming Joseph for polygamy's implementation, and swear legal affidavits to those falsehoods, and continue to repeat those lies until their deaths, even into the 1890s or early 1900s. Your entire attempt to prove that Joseph Smith did not introduce or practice polygamy amounts to jousting at windmills. No serious, credible, legitimate, degreed, historians who have researched and published on these issues over the last 80 years agree with your premise.
@@IBelieveJoseph Yo, dude: Here is a follow-up post I wrote to a commenter on Jeremy Hoop's RUclips channel. This guy wrote: "all the people you just called apologists are opposite of apologists. Apologists say Joseph lied for the lord." And I responded: You didn't understand a single word of my comment, did ya. Whether one wants to call it "lying for the Lord" or whatever, Joseph Smith clearly lied. This is not just the opinion of apologists like Brian Hales. This is what the evidence CLEARLY SHOWS. I'm gonna try to explain this to you: In 1887, William Law gave an interview to a reporter in which he recounted his experiences in Nauvoo. Law had joined the church in 1840, and assumed that Joseph was honest and that he was truly God's prophet. Because Law was intelligent and capable, Smith brought him into church leadership very quickly. Law believed Joseph's denials of John C. Bennett's accusations of polygamy in 1842, and Law even publicly defended Joseph. Joseph knew that Law was an honest, moral man, and that Law would not go along with Smith's "spiritual wifery" practice. So Joseph kept Law in the dark about it, until word of the practice became so widespread in Nauvoo by the fall of 1843 that Joseph had to admit it to Law. In his 1887 interview, Law stated: “In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?” “Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother.” Law then recounted how Hyrum Smith presented the "revelation on celestial marriage" to him, and that Joseph confirmed it and justified his lying about it: “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. I took the revelation back to my wife and told her that Joseph had acknowledged it. ‘That is what I fully expected.’ said she." If you're experienced in Mormon culture, I assume that you've heard of the "milk before meat" practice of introducing "deep" doctrines to church members over a period of time. Law's statement shows that Joseph Smith himself began that practice. And Law's situation with Joseph and polygamy was confirmed by Joseph's aide, Joseph H. Jackson, who had worked very closely with Smith for the last 20 months of his life. Shortly before the polygamy scandal came to a head and got Joseph and Hyrum killed, Jackson split from Smith, left Nauvoo, and penned his account of his experience in Nauvoo. Jackson's narrative was published before Smith's death, so it is a fresh, contemporary account. Jackson wrote of William Law: "It may be proper here to observe that Law, although one of the principal men of the church, yet he was not one of those to whom it was given to know "the fullness of the kingdom," although an enthusiastic Mormon, yet he was but little acquainted with any other than matters particularly pertaining to the church. He had frequently heard of the spiritual wife doctrine from the Gentiles, but he, not having heard such doctrine taught by Smith, set it down as a slanderous persecution against the church. When, however, this new revelation was made known to him, his eyes were opened, and at once, he indignantly rejected the doctrines as not of God, but of the Devil. Such was his vehemence and indignation, that it became apparent to Joe, that he had presumed too much on Law's faith, and that it would be idle to attempt to stuff him with the doctrine. There was no alternative, therefore for Joe, but to destroy Law's influence, and therefore a great bustle was raised and Law cut off from the holy order." So obviously, Joseph Smith's denials of polygamy were known of and published DURING HIS LIFETIME. So when Jeremy Hoop, Michelle Stone, and all of these other naive "Joseph Smith polygamy deniers" quote Joseph's and Hyrum's denials of polygamy and their preaching against it, Jeremy and friends need to be aware that DENYING POLYGAMY WAS THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE OF JOSEPH, HYRUM, AND ALL OF THE 120 OR SO PEOPLE WHOM THEY INDUCTED INTO POLYGAMY. That is why I used the analogy of Mafia oaths of secrecy to explain this situation. This means that Jeremy's, Michelle's, and apparently your attempts to denigrate Brian Hales are misguided. Brian Hales did not invent these facts of history; he merely retells the facts that legitimate, credible historians have been publishing ever since Fawn Brodie published her bio of Joseph Smith in 1946. So the crux of this matter is that now that I have shown you that it is obvious that Joseph Smith lied about teaching and practicing polygamy, do YOU choose to continue trusting in a proven liar.
@@randyjordan5521 Thats a nice story. Now we can move on to Michelle Stones extensive scholarship on the subject. She and Jeremy Hoop and Whitney Horning have debunked every piece of Brian's evidence. I have studied and vetted evidence on both sides, and the scriptures. Sorry, but Brian Hales has taken evidence and now tells storys of historical fiction. They are no more credible that Bushman's "cultural biography of Joseph Smith" whereby he admits to not vetting evidence. And why should he need to if it is simply a book about what the culture of the day was saying about Joseph Smith. And the scriptures, in no instance does God command anyone to live what the FAKE SALAMANDER LETTER D&C 132 calls the "principle and doctrine" of "many wives and concubines." Heavenly concubines and 15 other scriptural fallacies is all I need to know that Brigham Young and his cohorts in this abomination didn't know what they were talking about when they wrote this word soup.
Your content is great! I’ve been studying this for months and you present it all so well. Maybe get in touch with hemlock knots or Michelle stone? You can reach even more people who need to hear this through them!
@coledennis8171 Thank you! I’m not sure if my style would jive well well with Hemlock Knots’ or Michelle Stone’s style, although I like their content. If they asked me to come on though, I probably would. I appeared on the Clairity podcast because she asked: ruclips.net/video/iHQPgAqwelk/видео.htmlsi=-O7cX35ka7I_bwhS
This is brilliant! I can appreciate that historians are trying to piece together a story based on often contradicting sources, but I have not once seen him admit the bias that the Utah Saints were speaking under, this is an incredibly important part of the history. His number one tactic is to present information as fact, even after sometimes admitting how poor sources are, like in the case of Fanny Alger.
@@IBelieveJoseph Have you considered doing a video on Hyrum Smiths wives? My understanding is that there are only two claimed wives besides Jerusha and Mary Fielding, and that the evidence is extremely weak.
I'll stick with Hyrum's words that fits the anti-monogamist or polygamist crowd well "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" I am sure I would have loved Hyrum.
@FleeingBabylon-Now That’s a great talk! I’ve got a few videos about Hyrum’s opposition to polygamy, and how he’s been ignored (or worse): Is The LDS Church Still Altering History to Support Polygamy? ruclips.net/video/QxVtJvgvHAs/видео.html
@@IBelieveJoseph It is clear to me anyone and I mean anyone who promotes this doctrine is a fool or worse. That's why I believe Hyrum. I am doing a video on this talk too. I think I have seen your but will check it out. Any one who is a voice for reason and Joseph I admire.
Brilliant analysis! Really, all you needed was this quote to show how dumb this article is: “That is, the absence of documented births is not evidence that no such births occurred.” 😂
@phadrus While it’s technically correct, the concept is a bit ludicrous. Just change the topic to see; for example: “The absence of evidence for the existence of Atlantis is not evidence that Atlantis did not exist.”
I guess I used to think Brian really believed in polygamy but after this I can’t believe he hasn’t deliberately set out to deceive as many as he can knowing full well that Joseph never practiced polygamy. It’s just too contrived… he can’t have created this narrative accidentally
@7dixixiebug I can’t speak to what Brian might believe. To heighten the irony, I framed the video as though he used the tricks deliberately, but it’s possible he didn’t even realize he did it. There is almost no limit to the human capacity for self-deception. Alternately, he may have realized but considered the tricks worth it to make people believe what he’s already decided is the truth.
Brian Hales is getting desperate. This is good news. It is interesting that he tries to get Polygamy deniers to accept the burden of proof. Brian Hales after all is the accuser. What would happen if this ever went to court? It did in 1892 with the Temple Lot Case. The outcome definitely favoured the reputation of Joseph Smith. You asked us to give us a reason we know Joseph was not a Polygamist. Brian Hales skillful use of flawed logic unwittingly convinces me he was not a Polygamist.
Historians do not use the more reliable, legal processes to evaluate documents. They pretend it is a science, but peer reviewers aren't even experts in the subjects they review...
@definitivamenteno-malo7919 I don’t know who Aaron Ra is, but I doubt that he would talk about this. Most people aren’t aware of it, and it’s not directly related to the Book of Mormon. But if he does talk about it, good.
@definitivamenteno-malo7919 Ah. Well, nobody’s perfect. But from what I’ve seen, ex-and anti-Mormons often seem very emotionally attached to the anti-monogamist theories. I think it gives them a convenient reason to dismiss Joseph Smith completely.
So Brian wrote books full of fictitious stories and is offended when people don't believe him. I'll bet he also believes in fairies and leprechauns. We already know he believes in fire breathing dragons🐉 with flaming swords🤣🤣🤣🤣
@StompMom5 Well, like @dalecash2236 said, other people originally made up the stories. But it’s primarily Brian who weaved them into a new mythos. To quote Hugh Nibley, “[Brian] is not a myth maker, he is a mythographer.”
I have a problem, though. Hemlock Knots just made a video about how he thinks that sealings never happened during Joseph's time. If sealings aren't doctrinal, the modern church is insanely wrong about everything. The church falls apart. I don't know. Did William Law also lie about polygamy? I just don't see how this all works.
@Misa_Susaki I think that monogamous marriage dealings did happen. Records show that Hyrum Smith gave at least one talk where he decried polygamy, saying that people were twisting his sealing to his dead wife (with his current wife acting as proxy) into polygamy. He talked quite a bit about marriage sealing. In the context of the time,there’s no reason for that speech to have been invented. It was later suppressed multiple times by the LDS church, so maybe the HK person doesn’t know about it. Here’s one of my videos on it: ruclips.net/video/QxVtJvgvHAs/видео.htmlsi=vEMM7S4_d5dPbfEx
Respectfully bro, who’s right, the Church JS founded (which if was brought into Brigham’s hands as a false prophet is now apostate) or just you? That Brigham was a part of a secret polygamy group or Joseph simply covered up his involvement? This topic has been studied so much and the universal opinion is Joseph had wives.
@AndreaOfPatrae Even if you were right about Joseph’s alleged polygamy being the universal opinion, that’s a logical fallacy. If something is a popular or accepted belief, that doesn’t mean that it’s true. The question is: what are the facts? And the naked facts, shorn of the faith-promoting narrative constructed by the LDS church and the sly innuendo of the cynical, paint a far different picture than what is commonly accepted.
Historical consensus needs to be updated. People including historians did not have access to all the data we now have. Brigham Young did not anticipate the internet... And it would be nice if the Church historians did not try to hide docs instead of posting them where you would expect to find them. Joseph Smith had the ENTIRE church say AMEN twice at General Conference to a document called, THE VOICE OF INNOCENCE. This was 2 months before the martydom, and condemned every form of polygamy and fornication in every known vocabulary word. The LAW of MARRIAGE published in the D&C in 1835 and 1844 was MONOGAMY, one man and one woman. There is a reason there is a growing crescendo as Brian Hales calls it, of people that do not buy into polygamy or that Joseph was practicing or teaching it.
I love Joseph Smith... why are our leaders being stupid with the Temple "steeple" in Longview TX? Its causing worldwide negative view of the church. We might as well send all missionaries home for 2 years. The churchs reputation is ruined. Who's running this church? I feel like Joseph Smith was the last real Prophet everyone after him is like ummmm ok i guess! sometimes inspired but makes a lot of mistakes.
I understand what you are doing here, however you can flip every argument around and apply it to the anti-polygamy side. If the anti-polygamy was such a slam dunk, then you wouldn't have to make defamatory videos like this. 1. Anti-polygamy proponents (APP) have misrepresented things 2. APP have said if polygamy was practiced it should be written about more 3. APP have said that no open polygamy means no polygamy at all 4. APP have used very dubious sources to support their claim 5. APP have twisted things to support their claim 6. APP have assumed the conclusion first 7. APP have been very flexible with sources 8. APP never give the other side any credit. Full demonization campaign like you are doing now. 9. APP interpret everything to support their claim 10. APP ignore obvious contradictions
You're not necessarily wrong but the goal of the side of the critics is simply to show uncertainty while the polygamy traditionalists plant their flag as being the only rational position one can take and appeal to authority. You own the burden of proof when you argue for complete certainty. It doesn't matter if the critics have their own contradictions to explain.
@@PeterBrownscouts Because neither side can win on the facts alone, they are now slinging mud. The polygamy debate has been going on for at least 50 years now. Nothing new or original is being discovered.
@Telavian I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that the monogamist arguments are airtight, only that the anti-monogamist arguments are insufficient. Of course, I cannot be responsible for what other people may have said. As far your accusation that the monogamist side is guilty of the same things as Brian: I presented specific, documented examples of what one person did, and you responded with vague, undocumented assertions of what an unspecified group of people have done. I am not impressed.
I don't see this as defamatory at all. defamatory - damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libellous. I just don't see it. If someone takes a public position on a matter and you refute that with analysis and facts then how does this fit the term. I also agree with presenter that you are throwing out very vague reasoning with no examples at all. If you took any subject and all who ever spoke about it all your points would apply for at least one presenter or author.
@@IBelieveJoseph Thank you for letting me know that you are not impressed. It really helps move the discussion forward. You are condensing an entire field of study to a few selected quotes and sources. This is so silly. Entire books have been written on the subject on both sides. 1000+ sources to support both arguments. Picking one or two sources to criticized and then acting like you have analyzed the entire argument is so misleading. This is exactly what you have done here. This is a focused analysis, which really is completely meaningless. I am not impressed. This is exactly what you and others have done. I know one very popular anti-polygamy person who criticized Quinn for literally one source he used. She then used that to discredit his entire research. This is so silly, however it is exactly what you are doing here. I am not impressed. Quinn is one of the most researched, and quoted, scholars in Mormonism. He impresses me, however you certainly don't.
Not true. If you can explain how it's more important to keep your eye on the Lord and put leaders in their proper role as simply messengers, your faith should increase because it's centered on the Rock and not a man
@@IBelieveJoseph We wouldn't know about Jesus Christ were it not for men. Jesus Christ didn't write a single verse of scripture. I'm pretty sure He expects us to trust His prophets.
@@jerry_phillips Jesus > "Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost." Also Jesus > "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another." Most members like to quote Amos 3:7, or D&C 1:38, but even those verses have greater context and never justify blind faith in men.
Are you aware that D&C 132 was not canonized until 1876, 32 years after Joseph was murdered? Are you further aware of the law of Monogamy that was canonized during Joseph’s lifetime? You can see the original D&C 101 on marriage on the Joseph Smith Papers website.
Once I truly studied section 132 and compared it to Jacob 1-3, I knew that both could not be true and as I have a firm testimony that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, I choose the Book of Mormon which makes it unmistakably clear that multiple wives and concubines are an abomination and not of God. I encourage you to do your own marriage study purely from scripture.
Jacob was named after the polygamist Jacob. Lehi and Sariah really admired a wicked polygamist to name their son after him. The Book of Mormon wouldn't exist without it.
Did you know that John 4 is a Type for Jacob's meeting of Rachel at the well and their subsequent marriage. Jesus is teaching the church passing from Judah to Joseph here, the brides being the two covenant churches.
Good presentation. Keep it going. One thing to add is the legalistic concept of presumption of innocence. I think the correct way to proceed is to examine each allegation of Smith’s polygamy one by one, and then determine whether that particular evidence supports that Smith was guilty of polygamy beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists, then that piece of evidence or allegation is either diminished or dismissed. If reasonable doubt occurs for all pieces of evidence, then Smith must be found innocent because he is not proven guilty of polygamy beyond a reasonable doubt.
@Jjj53214 That’s a great point!
@@IBelieveJoseph Yo, "IBelieveJoseph" dude: I wrote the following comment on the RUclips channel of your fellow Joseph Smith polygamy denier Jeremy Hoop. I hope that this helps you understand the situation a little better than you currently do. My comment is particularly applicable to you, seeing as how you titled your channel "IBelieveJoseph":
Jeremy, here's the basic problem with your entire worldview and your videos: You assume that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he denied teaching and practicing polygamy and when he preached against it. If you just accept the obvious fact that Joseph lied about it, all of the contradictions that you talk about will be cleared up in your mind. Everybody needs to understand that about 120 people in Nauvoo had heard about polygamy during Joseph's lifetime, and every single one of them said that they learned it directly from Joseph or Hyrum. Not a single person in Nauvoo said that they learned about polygamy from Brigham Young, John C. Bennett, or anyone other than Joseph. That includes all of those who accepted polygamy and practiced it as well as all of those who opposed it and spoke out against it.
Numerous polygamy initiates in Nauvoo, as well as other people who rejected the practice, stated that Joseph swore all of his inductees to vows of secrecy, obviously because polygamy was against the law of the land and the rules of the church. So all of your quoting of Joseph where he denied and forbade polygamy are of no value to getting to the truth of this issue. Putting Joseph's activities in context of the period, he introduced his temple endowment ceremony on May 4, 1842. Joseph borrowed from Masonic oaths in implementing his endowment ceremony as well as when inducting followers into his "Anointed Quorum" of close, loyal insiders who were also most of his early plural marriage inductees. On February 7, 1844, a poem was published, attributed to Wilson Law, which satirized Joseph's secret wife practice, and mentioned those vows of secrecy. It was titled "Buckeye's Lamentation For Want Of More Wives," and it included this verse:
"This is the secret doctrine taught
By Joe and the red rams-
Although in public they deny-
But then 'tis all a sham.
They fear the indignation just,
Of those who have come here,
With hands thats clean and honest hearts,
To serve the Lord in fear."
Because this poem was published 4.5 months before Joseph's death, and it demonstrates that the oaths to deny polygamy existed, then that proves that all of Joseph's and Hyrum's denials of polygamy were falsehoods.
I'll explain the secret oath situation with an analogy: The Sicilian Mafia, or La Cosa Nostra, came into the USA via Italian immigrants in the 1860s. They of course flourished in crime for decades, mostly in large cities. The Mafia swore inductees to vows of secrecy and loyalty. Members were instructed to not let anyone know that the organization even existed, upon pain of death. Even though law enforcement officials knew very well that the crime org existed, and was responsible for most of the organized crime in the USA, no Mafioso "ratted out" the group until mobster Joseph Valachi testified to it in 1963. Valachi described the membership initiation and loyalty oaths, the leadership organization, etc. That went a long way towards beginning to break down the Mafia's power which culminated in the takedown of godfather John Gotti in 1990.
So when apologists like you, Michelle Stone, and other Joseph Smith polygamy deniers assert that most of the evidence that Joseph started polygamy wasn't known about until after his death---in your effort to prove that Joseph was not responsible for it---you must understand that the biggest reason that there wasn't MORE contemporaneous evidence was because all of Joseph's polygamy initiates had sworn to those vows of secrecy. But just as Joseph Valachi's testimony revealed many of the secrets and crimes of the Mafia, the testimonies of Joseph's fellow polygamists, as well as polygamy's opponents after his death confirmed that he was its originator and proponent.
Of course, Joseph's polygamy opponents during his lifetime tried to persuade him to renounce and abolish the practice, and when he refused, they tried to publicly expose it, as William Law & Co. did by publishing the "Nauvoo Expositor." And Smith and his apologists responded by calling Law & Co. the sinners and liars. Smith did the same thing two years earlier by blaming the reports of his advances on Martha Brotherton, Nancy Rigdon, etc. on the sinner and liar John C. Bennett. That was Smith's modus operandi for fending off the accusations: simply accuse your accusers of the very sins and crimes that you are committing. So that's why we're here today 180 years after the events, and people like you still believe that John C. Bennett, William Law, Brigham Young, etc. were the "bad guys," and that Joseph and Hyrum were the only good and honest guys. As I wrote above, about 120 people in Nauvoo had learned of polygamy, and every one of them said that they learned it from Joseph or Hyrum. So it's simply intellectually dishonest to theorize that all of those people, who were on both sides of the issue, colluded with each other to concoct and spread a massive common lie blaming Joseph for polygamy's implementation, and swear legal affidavits to those falsehoods, and continue to repeat those lies until their deaths, even into the 1890s or early 1900s.
Your entire attempt to prove that Joseph Smith did not introduce or practice polygamy amounts to jousting at windmills. No serious, credible, legitimate, degreed, historians who have researched and published on these issues over the last 80 years agree with your premise.
@@IBelieveJoseph Yo, dude: Here is a follow-up post I wrote to a commenter on Jeremy Hoop's RUclips channel. This guy wrote:
"all the people you just called apologists are opposite of apologists. Apologists say Joseph lied for the lord."
And I responded:
You didn't understand a single word of my comment, did ya. Whether one wants to call it "lying for the Lord" or whatever, Joseph Smith clearly lied. This is not just the opinion of apologists like Brian Hales. This is what the evidence CLEARLY SHOWS. I'm gonna try to explain this to you: In 1887, William Law gave an interview to a reporter in which he recounted his experiences in Nauvoo. Law had joined the church in 1840, and assumed that Joseph was honest and that he was truly God's prophet. Because Law was intelligent and capable, Smith brought him into church leadership very quickly. Law believed Joseph's denials of John C. Bennett's accusations of polygamy in 1842, and Law even publicly defended Joseph. Joseph knew that Law was an honest, moral man, and that Law would not go along with Smith's "spiritual wifery" practice. So Joseph kept Law in the dark about it, until word of the practice became so widespread in Nauvoo by the fall of 1843 that Joseph had to admit it to Law. In his 1887 interview, Law stated:
“In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?”
“Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother.”
Law then recounted how Hyrum Smith presented the "revelation on celestial marriage" to him, and that Joseph confirmed it and justified his lying about it:
“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. I took the revelation back to my wife and told her that Joseph had acknowledged it. ‘That is what I fully expected.’ said she."
If you're experienced in Mormon culture, I assume that you've heard of the "milk before meat" practice of introducing "deep" doctrines to church members over a period of time. Law's statement shows that Joseph Smith himself began that practice. And Law's situation with Joseph and polygamy was confirmed by Joseph's aide, Joseph H. Jackson, who had worked very closely with Smith for the last 20 months of his life. Shortly before the polygamy scandal came to a head and got Joseph and Hyrum killed, Jackson split from Smith, left Nauvoo, and penned his account of his experience in Nauvoo. Jackson's narrative was published before Smith's death, so it is a fresh, contemporary account. Jackson wrote of William Law:
"It may be proper here to observe that Law, although one of the principal men of the church, yet he was not one of those to whom it was given to know "the fullness of the kingdom," although an enthusiastic Mormon, yet he was but little acquainted with any other than matters particularly pertaining to the church. He had frequently heard of the spiritual wife doctrine from the Gentiles, but he, not having heard such doctrine taught by Smith, set it down as a slanderous persecution against the church. When, however, this new revelation was made known to him, his eyes were opened, and at once, he indignantly rejected the doctrines as not of God, but of the Devil. Such was his vehemence and indignation, that it became apparent to Joe, that he had presumed too much on Law's faith, and that it would be idle to attempt to stuff him with the doctrine. There was no alternative, therefore for Joe, but to destroy Law's influence, and therefore a great bustle was raised and Law cut off from the holy order."
So obviously, Joseph Smith's denials of polygamy were known of and published DURING HIS LIFETIME. So when Jeremy Hoop, Michelle Stone, and all of these other naive "Joseph Smith polygamy deniers" quote Joseph's and Hyrum's denials of polygamy and their preaching against it, Jeremy and friends need to be aware that DENYING POLYGAMY WAS THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE OF JOSEPH, HYRUM, AND ALL OF THE 120 OR SO PEOPLE WHOM THEY INDUCTED INTO POLYGAMY. That is why I used the analogy of Mafia oaths of secrecy to explain this situation.
This means that Jeremy's, Michelle's, and apparently your attempts to denigrate Brian Hales are misguided. Brian Hales did not invent these facts of history; he merely retells the facts that legitimate, credible historians have been publishing ever since Fawn Brodie published her bio of Joseph Smith in 1946. So the crux of this matter is that now that I have shown you that it is obvious that Joseph Smith lied about teaching and practicing polygamy, do YOU choose to continue trusting in a proven liar.
@@randyjordan5521 Thats a nice story. Now we can move on to Michelle Stones extensive scholarship on the subject. She and Jeremy Hoop and Whitney Horning have debunked every piece of Brian's evidence. I have studied and vetted evidence on both sides, and the scriptures. Sorry, but Brian Hales has taken evidence and now tells storys of historical fiction. They are no more credible that Bushman's "cultural biography of Joseph Smith" whereby he admits to not vetting evidence. And why should he need to if it is simply a book about what the culture of the day was saying about Joseph Smith. And the scriptures, in no instance does God command anyone to live what the FAKE SALAMANDER LETTER D&C 132 calls the "principle and doctrine" of "many wives and concubines."
Heavenly concubines and 15 other scriptural fallacies is all I need to know that Brigham Young and his cohorts in this abomination didn't know what they were talking about when they wrote this word soup.
Every episode you produce restores my faith in Christ and the Restoration. This one is brilliant. A slam dunk for Joseph and monogamy. Thank you!
@NanetteOneal Wow! High and humbling praise. Thank you!
Your content is great! I’ve been studying this for months and you present it all so well. Maybe get in touch with hemlock knots or Michelle stone? You can reach even more people who need to hear this through them!
@coledennis8171 Thank you! I’m not sure if my style would jive well well with Hemlock Knots’ or Michelle Stone’s style, although I like their content. If they asked me to come on though, I probably would. I appeared on the Clairity podcast because she asked: ruclips.net/video/iHQPgAqwelk/видео.htmlsi=-O7cX35ka7I_bwhS
This is brilliant! I can appreciate that historians are trying to piece together a story based on often contradicting sources, but I have not once seen him admit the bias that the Utah Saints were speaking under, this is an incredibly important part of the history. His number one tactic is to present information as fact, even after sometimes admitting how poor sources are, like in the case of Fanny Alger.
Thank you! I agree about presenting his conclusions as facts.
@@IBelieveJoseph Have you considered doing a video on Hyrum Smiths wives? My understanding is that there are only two claimed wives besides Jerusha and Mary Fielding, and that the evidence is extremely weak.
@Commenter2121 I had not considered a video on Hyrum’s alleged wives. I’ll add it to the idea list. Thank you for the suggestion!
@@IBelieveJoseph There are only a few and the evidence for each is extremely bad from what I’ve seen. Shouldn’t be a long video:)
Nice! Congratulations on the 1k subs!❤
Thank you! 😁
Love love love this! ❤
I’m glad!
I'll stick with Hyrum's words that fits the anti-monogamist or polygamist crowd well "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" I am sure I would have loved Hyrum.
@FleeingBabylon-Now That’s a great talk! I’ve got a few videos about Hyrum’s opposition to polygamy, and how he’s been ignored (or worse): Is The LDS Church Still Altering History to Support Polygamy?
ruclips.net/video/QxVtJvgvHAs/видео.html
@@IBelieveJoseph It is clear to me anyone and I mean anyone who promotes this doctrine is a fool or worse. That's why I believe Hyrum. I am doing a video on this talk too. I think I have seen your but will check it out. Any one who is a voice for reason and Joseph I admire.
AMEN! AND, it is all I can do not to figuratively wring a few noses as he also suggested:)
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c Exactly
You seriously ought to consider going to law school. You’d make a great trial lawyer.
@Maryel_R_R_Palmer Wow! I’ll take that as a compliment. 😁
This is absolutely brilliant! I really appreciate all you and others are doing to get the truth out. I believe Joseph!
@JoySoul73 Why, thank you!
Brilliant analysis! Really, all you needed was this quote to show how dumb this article is: “That is, the absence of documented births is not evidence that no such births occurred.” 😂
@phadrus While it’s technically correct, the concept is a bit ludicrous. Just change the topic to see; for example: “The absence of evidence for the existence of Atlantis is not evidence that Atlantis did not exist.”
It is so wonderful to see so many working to exonerate Joseph and so many coming to the truth!
Thank you for saying so. I think so, too!
Brian undoubtedly started with the conclusion in mind...
Almost certainly.
Great podcast, I appreciate the way you share your research! 👍♥️
@cherylclute4981 Thank you for saying so!
Masterpiece and entertaining 🙌🏻😂
Thank you!
You crushed it Bro!!!!
Wow! Thank you!
Well that's interesting, I'm a southern baptist type fella, but i have a close friend who is not apart of the main lds church.
@stachman9531 Thank you for watching! I’m glad that you found it interesting.
I guess I used to think Brian really believed in polygamy but after this I can’t believe he hasn’t deliberately set out to deceive as many as he can knowing full well that Joseph never practiced polygamy. It’s just too contrived… he can’t have created this narrative accidentally
@7dixixiebug I can’t speak to what Brian might believe. To heighten the irony, I framed the video as though he used the tricks deliberately, but it’s possible he didn’t even realize he did it. There is almost no limit to the human capacity for self-deception. Alternately, he may have realized but considered the tricks worth it to make people believe what he’s already decided is the truth.
Brian Hales is getting desperate. This is good news. It is interesting that he tries to get Polygamy deniers to accept the burden of proof. Brian Hales after all is the accuser.
What would happen if this ever went to court? It did in 1892 with the Temple Lot Case. The outcome definitely favoured the reputation of Joseph Smith.
You asked us to give us a reason we know Joseph was not a Polygamist. Brian Hales skillful use of flawed logic unwittingly convinces me he was not a Polygamist.
@ronaldwinfield307 The tricks the anti-monogamists had to pull with their “evidence” was a big red flag for me, too.
Historians do not use the more reliable, legal processes to evaluate documents. They pretend it is a science, but peer reviewers aren't even experts in the subjects they review...
I can't wait to see Aron Ra taking about this, since he's doing a reading on the Mormon Book and such
@definitivamenteno-malo7919 I don’t know who Aaron Ra is, but I doubt that he would talk about this. Most people aren’t aware of it, and it’s not directly related to the Book of Mormon. But if he does talk about it, good.
@@IBelieveJoseph He's an ex-Mormon science-divulger and atheist activist, tho.
@definitivamenteno-malo7919 Ah. Well, nobody’s perfect. But from what I’ve seen, ex-and anti-Mormons often seem very emotionally attached to the anti-monogamist theories. I think it gives them a convenient reason to dismiss Joseph Smith completely.
So Brian wrote books full of fictitious stories and is offended when people don't believe him. I'll bet he also believes in fairies and leprechauns.
We already know he believes in fire breathing dragons🐉 with flaming swords🤣🤣🤣🤣
It was interesting when he went on 132 problems and duked it out with Michelle. It was all the same dismissive of any and all contrary evidence.
To be fair, Brian didn't create the fictitious stories. He was just tasked with creating a world where the stories could possibly be true.
@StompMom5 Well, like @dalecash2236 said, other people originally made up the stories. But it’s primarily Brian who weaved them into a new mythos. To quote Hugh Nibley, “[Brian] is not a myth maker, he is a mythographer.”
Are you the same author of the channel Uncorrelated Mormonism?
@matthewtaylor2344 Thank you for the question! I am not. In fact, I don’t recall ever seeing any of Uncorrelated Mormonism’s videos.
I have a problem, though. Hemlock Knots just made a video about how he thinks that sealings never happened during Joseph's time.
If sealings aren't doctrinal, the modern church is insanely wrong about everything. The church falls apart.
I don't know. Did William Law also lie about polygamy? I just don't see how this all works.
@Misa_Susaki I think that monogamous marriage dealings did happen. Records show that Hyrum Smith gave at least one talk where he decried polygamy, saying that people were twisting his sealing to his dead wife (with his current wife acting as proxy) into polygamy. He talked quite a bit about marriage sealing. In the context of the time,there’s no reason for that speech to have been invented. It was later suppressed multiple times by the LDS church, so maybe the HK person doesn’t know about it. Here’s one of my videos on it: ruclips.net/video/QxVtJvgvHAs/видео.htmlsi=vEMM7S4_d5dPbfEx
Can you make a video on why you believe mormonism to be true
@SirdanielCR I think that I discussed that briefly in this video:
ruclips.net/video/jxcC0TTGFfs/видео.html
Respectfully bro, who’s right, the Church JS founded (which if was brought into Brigham’s hands as a false prophet is now apostate) or just you? That Brigham was a part of a secret polygamy group or Joseph simply covered up his involvement? This topic has been studied so much and the universal opinion is Joseph had wives.
@AndreaOfPatrae Even if you were right about Joseph’s alleged polygamy being the universal opinion, that’s a logical fallacy. If something is a popular or accepted belief, that doesn’t mean that it’s true. The question is: what are the facts? And the naked facts, shorn of the faith-promoting narrative constructed by the LDS church and the sly innuendo of the cynical, paint a far different picture than what is commonly accepted.
Historical consensus needs to be updated. People including historians did not have access to all the data we now have. Brigham Young did not anticipate the internet... And it would be nice if the Church historians did not try to hide docs instead of posting them where you would expect to find them. Joseph Smith had the ENTIRE church say AMEN twice at General Conference to a document called, THE VOICE OF INNOCENCE. This was 2 months before the martydom, and condemned every form of polygamy and fornication in every known vocabulary word. The LAW of MARRIAGE published in the D&C in 1835 and 1844 was MONOGAMY, one man and one woman. There is a reason there is a growing crescendo as Brian Hales calls it, of people that do not buy into polygamy or that Joseph was practicing or teaching it.
I love Joseph Smith... why are our leaders being stupid with the Temple "steeple" in Longview TX? Its causing worldwide negative view of the church. We might as well send all missionaries home for 2 years. The churchs reputation is ruined. Who's running this church? I feel like Joseph Smith was the last real Prophet everyone after him is like ummmm ok i guess! sometimes inspired but makes a lot of mistakes.
I understand what you are doing here, however you can flip every argument around and apply it to the anti-polygamy side.
If the anti-polygamy was such a slam dunk, then you wouldn't have to make defamatory videos like this.
1. Anti-polygamy proponents (APP) have misrepresented things
2. APP have said if polygamy was practiced it should be written about more
3. APP have said that no open polygamy means no polygamy at all
4. APP have used very dubious sources to support their claim
5. APP have twisted things to support their claim
6. APP have assumed the conclusion first
7. APP have been very flexible with sources
8. APP never give the other side any credit. Full demonization campaign like you are doing now.
9. APP interpret everything to support their claim
10. APP ignore obvious contradictions
You're not necessarily wrong but the goal of the side of the critics is simply to show uncertainty while the polygamy traditionalists plant their flag as being the only rational position one can take and appeal to authority. You own the burden of proof when you argue for complete certainty. It doesn't matter if the critics have their own contradictions to explain.
@@PeterBrownscouts Because neither side can win on the facts alone, they are now slinging mud.
The polygamy debate has been going on for at least 50 years now. Nothing new or original is being discovered.
@Telavian I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that the monogamist arguments are airtight, only that the anti-monogamist arguments are insufficient. Of course, I cannot be responsible for what other people may have said.
As far your accusation that the monogamist side is guilty of the same things as Brian: I presented specific, documented examples of what one person did, and you responded with vague, undocumented assertions of what an unspecified group of people have done. I am not impressed.
I don't see this as defamatory at all. defamatory - damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libellous. I just don't see it. If someone takes a public position on a matter and you refute that with analysis and facts then how does this fit the term. I also agree with presenter that you are throwing out very vague reasoning with no examples at all. If you took any subject and all who ever spoke about it all your points would apply for at least one presenter or author.
@@IBelieveJoseph Thank you for letting me know that you are not impressed. It really helps move the discussion forward.
You are condensing an entire field of study to a few selected quotes and sources. This is so silly. Entire books have been written on the subject on both sides. 1000+ sources to support both arguments. Picking one or two sources to criticized and then acting like you have analyzed the entire argument is so misleading.
This is exactly what you have done here. This is a focused analysis, which really is completely meaningless. I am not impressed.
This is exactly what you and others have done. I know one very popular anti-polygamy person who criticized Quinn for literally one source he used. She then used that to discredit his entire research. This is so silly, however it is exactly what you are doing here. I am not impressed.
Quinn is one of the most researched, and quoted, scholars in Mormonism. He impresses me, however you certainly don't.
Those who throw subsequent restoration prophets under the bus are no help to anyone’s faith.
Not true. If you can explain how it's more important to keep your eye on the Lord and put leaders in their proper role as simply messengers, your faith should increase because it's centered on the Rock and not a man
@@PeterBrownscouts My faith is centered on Christ and his prophet.
@jerry_phillips That depends entirely on whether one’s faith is centered in Jesus Christ, or men.
@@IBelieveJoseph We wouldn't know about Jesus Christ were it not for men. Jesus Christ didn't write a single verse of scripture. I'm pretty sure He expects us to trust His prophets.
@@jerry_phillips Jesus > "Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost."
Also Jesus > "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another."
Most members like to quote Amos 3:7, or D&C 1:38, but even those verses have greater context and never justify blind faith in men.
The main "technique" we LDS use is D&C 132. Our written, canonized scripture.
Are you aware that D&C 132 was not canonized until 1876, 32 years after Joseph was murdered? Are you further aware of the law of Monogamy that was canonized during Joseph’s lifetime? You can see the original D&C 101 on marriage on the Joseph Smith Papers website.
Yes. I'm aware of all that. It is still our canonized doctrine and it is true. Brigham Young was as true of a prophet as Joseph Smith.
Once I truly studied section 132 and compared it to Jacob 1-3, I knew that both could not be true and as I have a firm testimony that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, I choose the Book of Mormon which makes it unmistakably clear that multiple wives and concubines are an abomination and not of God. I encourage you to do your own marriage study purely from scripture.
Jacob was named after the polygamist Jacob. Lehi and Sariah really admired a wicked polygamist to name their son after him. The Book of Mormon wouldn't exist without it.
Did you know that John 4 is a Type for Jacob's meeting of Rachel at the well and their subsequent marriage. Jesus is teaching the church passing from Judah to Joseph here, the brides being the two covenant churches.