Yes, The Church will not fall apart to shed the false narrative Joseph was a polygamist, or the abominable "principle and doctrine" of "many wives and concubines" was ever of God.
Few quick things: I don’t always agree with Rob Fotheringham but his video showing clear discrepancies in the final 15 verses or so of the Kingsbury section 132 copy is compelling, and shouldn’t be ignored, it does call into question whether this was copied all at the same time Franklin Richards was not in the high council meeting in August of 1843, so what he’s claiming is second or third hand Clayton’s contemporary journal for July 12, 1843 clearly shows that Joseph and Hyrum took the revelation and read it to Emma. Clayton’s 1870’s affidavit claims Hyrum took it and Joseph stayed in the office, and that is the account that the polygamy narrative is based on, an important contradiction to note
Someone did “spill the beans” in a sense. Sarah Lawrence made it clear that she was never married to Joseph Smith and had no relationship with him. Most of the women never claimed to be married to him. Another example in a way is what polygamist wives wrote/said in public vs private. Many of these women defended polygamy publicly but in their raw private feelings, spoke about the pain and hurt it caused them. I don’t see how it’s not possible that they could have created a narrative, without specifically being threatened. Fundamentalist polygamists do this all the time.
@@Commenter2121 I think something can be said for what you're claiming they said - both publicly and privately - versus the reaction of polygamous wives when the manifesto came out putting an end to plural marriage among the saints. As we all know, Joseph struggled to find the right ways to enact not just plural marriage but other things such as tithing and the endowment. The principles were restored, but the practice was a rough start. This explains why "many of the women" might feel pained by it. By contrast, ending polygamy seems to have been just as difficult, and there are reports (including from my wife's great-grandparents, her great-grandmother especially) that they were shocked and sorrowful to have to end the practice. It would seem that starting the practice was rough, but they eventually made it a wonderful and joyful thing.
Not quite. The only source saying that Sarah Lawrence denied being married to Joseph Smith is a quote from Sarah Mar Kimball Whitney after she left Heber C. Kimball. Like Todd Compton wrote, that's questionable as Whitney account is highly hostile to Sarah Lawrence and even claims she denied being married to Heber C. Kimball. Sarah Lawrence's life is not well documented and there is nothing that supports this account from Whitney. Many of the wives of Joseph Smith left few or no accounts of anything about their lives. That's not unusual for people of that time. It's not surprising that we don't have accounts from them about being married to Joseph Smith.
@@marktensmeyer6512 Okay, but by that logic you would need to remove the majority of Joseph’s alleged wives because they never made a first hand statement. Sarah Lawrence never claimed to be married to Joseph and via a second hand source, she even denied it. If we are not going to believe her, we better remove over half of the alleged wives. And what do you make of the women’s private vs public statements? I believe there was the woman here and there that actually enjoyed living in polygamy, but when their true feelings show it appears that they publicly said what they needed to to protect the church and its leaders.
@@DannyAGray Sorry, but you cannot support your claim. All that narrative you are giving is a bunch of made up stuff that people create because they have no actual evidence that Joseph ever taught or enacted polygamy.
@@marktensmeyer6512 Sorry but the Church admits, right in their question answer video on Joseph Smiths polygamy, that the Church does not have actual evidence that Joseph was a polygamist. An allegation is different than a conviction. So what that means is, with all of these--various counts of how many wives that Joseph Smith supposedly had--one count was 35! It is telling that we don't have records supporting this. I am sorry but do you have any idea the number of people that would be keeping this a secret???? That would be quite the conspiracy! Not feasible.
Here is the main issue with the claims Sister Stone and others like her, make. Greg, you asked her many times if Brigham Young, John Taylor etc, lied about plural marriage being a commandment from God taught by Joseph Smith. She kept saying she was hesitant to say that(my opinion on that is she doesn’t want to come out and say that because she doesn’t want to get excommunicated. She would basically be saying Russell M Nelson doesn’t hold the keys and isn’t a prophet) however, she kept saying modern prophets perhaps have been deceived because of false traditions. If her claims are true, it would mean dozens of early church leaders orchestrated a HUGE coverup and scandal Implicating Joseph in the process. I’m no fan of polygamy and other parts of church history, but the real issue is if we sustain the prophets from Brigham to President Nelson, we have to trust that the apostolic keys were passed from Joseph to Brigham and so on. It’s part of our history, it’s behind us. Let’s move on and focus on loving our neighbor and living the gospel instead of trying to besmirch early church leaders because we don’t like some of the early practices. I have a testimony that Joseph and Brigham were both called as prophets of God and Russel M Nelson is the living prophet today.
It was an important sacrifice and blessing. David Alexander still has the best commentary on this that I have ever heard. He was a new convert at the time but his grasp of the Bible and the gospel is extrodinary.
On top of what you said, it was pretty clear she was open to accepting the ridiculous notion Brigham and others were involved in the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum. She's lost.
Michelle Stone was in Thoughtful Saints Facebook group just a few days ago trying to convince people that the current endowment is not what Joseph Smith revealed and that sealings in the temple are not how God seals families. Polygamy is just a theological weapon Michelle Stone uses so she can attack our Temple Ordinances
So, according to these two men, if the only reason God will permit polygamy and allow it is to “raise up seed unto him,” then why is there no great influx of children in Nauvoo and why are there no other offspring/children of Joseph Smith?
That’s a good question in regards to Joseph Smith. But the time period in Nauvoo may not have enough data. I think you really have to look at Utah where it was practiced for so long.
@@shanandkyleSau Eve came from a rib right? Why not pluck a few more out? I mean, this is God we’re talking about. Why couldn’t he make a few more women?
I think it is interesting that both sides of the argument contend that the group on the other side are guilty of those 5 faulty methodology approaches to the research.... Given that this topic is not peripheral - but is core to key gospel principles (the nature of the family now and in eternity, how revelation is received, the latitude that prophets, seers and revelators have in using their agency)- that I hope the conversation can continue to become more productive.... I love the answer to critics of the Abraham translation - to shift the focus from translation details to a deep study/analysis of the CONTENT of Abraham - is the content inspiring and inspired. I would love it if there was deep analysis of section 132 - focusing on the inspiration of each verse - that is what matters when it comes to our canonized scriptures. My only comment on the statement that those who deny Joseph started polygamy are on the way to apostasy is that there were apostles in the 1960's who passionately disagreed with the priesthood ban - were they on the path to apostasy? Not a perfect analogy - but something to consider....
One way or the other, it's ironic that Hyrum openly taught against polygamy, and never practiced polygamy while supposedly being an evangelist for polygamy. Yes, Mary Fielding Smith only acted as a proxy for Hyrum's first wife. 29 May, "the morning after Joseph and Emma were sealed, Brigham & Mary Ann Young and Willard & Jennetta Richards gathered above the store to have their legal marriages sealed. Hyrum & Mary Fielding Smith were also there, and Mary Fielding acted as proxy for Hyrum to be sealed to his first wife, Jerusha."
I believe the church may have bigger political reasons for keeping the official plgmy narrative intact. Sure, there's the succession thing, But possibly origin/uniqueness of religion, idk another thread of reasoning fed gov could use in attempt to revoke our 501c3. The Church has enough to deal with currently, without adding a potential can of worms like this. Either way... the Church is true.
@@CwicShow Why do the "historians" not jump to false conclusions about the men that Joseph was sealed to? Instead, they selectively exclude those sealings from Joseph's alleged polygamy. What difference was there in their performance? The "historians" are often provably wrong in their interpretations, but they take their queues from the oft repeated standard narrative.
@@CwicShow Joseph was the figure head of the Church, and the persona which people targeted when attacking the Mormons. I am not sure exactly how many were accused aside from him, but we know that Brigham and Willard Richards both married polygamously prior to July 12, 1842. And that is aside from them and others practicing spiritual wifery before that.
@@frankcastle5513 AMEN. Historians call it "consensus." Supposedly they are supposed to update their "consensus" when presented with new evidence. Oddly, they are doubling down on "consensus" and mocking Michelle, vs engaging with her on her mountain of very credible evidence exonerating Joseph and Emma of being polygamists. And very credible evidence, that D&C Section 132 is a fake, put forward by Brigham not Joseph.
Yes, Brian we can look at D&C 132 and we can compare it to Joseph's other revelations/sermons and it is very clear when doing so that it did not come from Joseph. Not only would he not make the mistake of listing Isaac as a polygamist or contradict what the BOM said about David and Solomon but it sounds nothing like his other revelations/sermons. If we are lazy and don't want to compare it and really look at it we can just look at Enid DeBarthes writing analysis on D&C 132 and discover that her conclusion was that it was not written by Joseph but more likely by Brigham. And why if this revelation was so important that Brigham said you couldn't gain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom if you didn't practice it, why would he wait 5 years after they had reached the safety of Utah and persecution was no longer an excuse to reveal this important revelation that allegedly had already been out and read to the high council? Makes no sense, unless you believe in fairytales. Thankfully I don't.
26:00 ish Brian omits the fact that Brigham, Heber and Clayton all practiced spiritual wifery in England prior to the "revelation" in 1843, and prior to Joseph allegedly telling them about the principle and doctrine.
That is not true! That is a gross misinterpretation of the facts! Brigham Young talked about in his journal that the Lord was preparing his mind while he was in England and he relates spiritual experiences he had. When Joseph Smith revealed it to Brigham Young and that it was to be practiced in the last days, BY accepted the revelation because his mind had been prepared by the Lord before hand. It was hard for even Brigham Young to put it in practice just like it was hard for them women and when BY was told to take a second wife he said that he desired the grave.
@@cameronsmith5786they wrote some details about the practice and referred to "the principle" in their letters and journals. They were practicing spiritually wifery in England.
1835 - “General Assembly,” Messenger and Advocate 1 (August 1835) 2: 162. 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Section CI (101). 1844 Doctrine and Covenants Section 109. “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.”
May 1837 - Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio), May 1837, page 511. The May 1837 issue of the Messenger and Advocate contained a warning from the presidents of seventies meeting held 28 April 1837 that "we will have no fellowship whatever with any Elder belonging to the quorum of the Seventies who is guilty of polygamy or any offense of the kind."
29 November 1837 - Kirtland Elder’s Quorum Record, 1836-1841, edited by Lyndon W. Cook and Milton V. Backman, Jr. (Provo, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1985), 35. “the charge that was preferred before the quorum against Elder Sollomon [sic] Freeman by William Perry for the crime of polygamy was brought forward. Elder Freeman plead not gilty of the charge [.] [T]estimony for the Complainent came forward (Dexter Stilman) and Stated the Elder Freeman had a wife in Tollan township Co. of Berksheir in Mass. And it was told him there that he (E. Freeman) Came a way [without his] wife Elder Harlow Redfield Stated that when he and Elder Stilman went to See Elder Freeman. Elder Freeman ackno[w]loged that he come away and left his wife as was testified Elder Freeman ackno[w]loged before the quorum that he had left his first wife came away with and Soon Commenced living with another woman he further Stated he did not know but his first wife was yet living he further Stated he would not go acros [sic] the room to obtain a bill from her Elder Freeman Manifest a Car[e]less indifferent spirit.”
Here is my thoughts has a convert to the church. I have been a member of the church for the past 21 years. Let's say Joseph did or did not practice polygamy, how does this information changes your point of view about the gospel of Jesus Christ? We need to remember that God only has imperfect people to work with to bring to pass his mission and purpose. Let's say Joseph Smith did practice polygamy and he did receive that revelation from God at that time and now we are no longer need to practice this. Tell me how does that change our relationship with God or the church? Let's say he didn't practice it and it is a lie, same question, how does it change anything? Let's say he did practice it but he lied about it being a revelation from God? My question is still, how does it change anything? Although, I do understand if one to believe that he would lie of this one thing then we must question everything else he have said even the restoration of the gospel. The point that I am trying to make is that we tend to put people/ human beings on such a high pedestal that we forget that they are not perfect beings. Joseph Smith was an inperfect man just like the rest of us who was called to do a very important work. In our minds we are thinking he couldn't possibly see God and Jesus Christ and still sin after that experience and that is where I think we get our misunderstanding. Now I'm not saying that he lied about anything but the point I am making is that he was used by God as a vessel, he is an important part of history for the reason that God used him for this mission and Joseph went through a lot because of it but to be clear the church is not Joseph Smith church. Our beliefs and faith should be on God and Jesus Christ. History is great for learning about those that lived before us and sacrifices so much for us to have what we do now but they should not be the why or how we have a relationship with God and Jesus Christ. The question we should ask ourselves is what kind of a relationship do I have with God and the savior? Are we keeping the commandments and honoring our covenants. How is the gospel of Jesus Christ impacting your life? To me, my testimony is. I have been on both side and being a member of the church and following the teachings of all of these imperfect man and women that God has used from the beginning of times has help me gain such a deep understanding and relationship with the savior. My thoughts on Joseph Smith is, I appreciate his sacrifice and his willingness to learn and seek truths. I appreciate knowing the fact that God will use us even the unlearned imperfect people such as Joseph to bring forth such an important work! Although it is good to know these History, we must not loose sight on what truly matter in the first place, the reason why we have these historical stories in the first place. Sorry about the rant but I hope the point I am trying to make is clear. Whatever beliefs you have about Joseph Smith, ask yourself how does that change your relationship with God or Jesus Christ? The gospel is a pathway of which help us gain knowledge and provides a way to our end goal which is to be with God again and to be more like him. Joseph Smith was one of those great people that God used to pave the way/path for us but let's not get it twisted, your faith should not be on him or any of the prophets.❤
Same! I knew Joseph was deeply flawed when I joined, same with the other prophets… luckily I only look to the savior for perfection, this problem comes from prophet worship. Even Jonas wanted God to kill all the people of Ninava, not to great… but still a prophet
@@kristenthompson962 Joseph was not deeply flawed. He also was NOT a polygamist. His enemies alleged he was a polygamist. And it is alleged that God sometimes commands polygamy. Both Joseph and God have been convicted without even a hearing. Michelle has the better solid evidence that Joseph was innocent of those allegations. I have studied every related scripture and the scriptures overall all my life. Jacob 2-3 is NOT a loophole for polygamy. There is record in scripture of any time God commanded polygamy. Michelle has successfully shown 132 to be a fake. And the fact 132 has so many false doctrines, contrary to The Book of Mormon and other scripture--that it is case closed.
I don’t think it matters so much about Joseph. The reason why polygamy needs to be figured out is because it shows us who God is and what his daughters mean to him. Are his daughters valued like Jacob claims and he does not want them hurt because of polygamy or are his daughters a possessions for men and if they don’t harken they will be destroyed like it is claimed in section 132. Is polygamy the only way to have exaltation? Or is that false? I think each individual can take this to God for answers. Then with the added knowledge of how messed up the history is of Joseph and polygamy it becomes so clear who is behind polygamy. Satan is very cunning! Of course he is going to sow that seed into the restoration of the gospel. Why wouldn’t he?!? It’s genius and God isn’t surprised by it so we shouldn’t be either. That’s why we have repentance and it works for our church just the same as it works for us individually. It’s beautiful to see how this false tradition is getting plucked out of hearts one member at a time. Which I also think is the way it needs to happen. This truth of knowing polygamy is not of God is bringing forth such beautiful fruit of joy and peace. We don’t have to carry the weight of this false doctrine- which if we are honest none of us want to talk about. It’s the icky doctrine that we all wish would just go away. With the atonement of Jesus Christ it can! 🤍
@@tls9382 the question still remains. What if polygamy was instructed from God? Or what if it wasn't? Where does that put your faith? We get so bent out of shape when history make us feel uncomfortable but it our job to seek truth and listen to the spirit for our personal testimonies but it is not our job to try to bring the whole church down because we are uncomfortable on our own convictions. Sense we are so convinced that polygamy is so bad, what if God said to bring it back today and you had the personal witness that it was from God by the prophet now? Would you follow or what would be your reaction? Because we make the decision to be a member of the church, we agree to follow Jesus Christ where ever he goes and we must respect the authorities of the man that he put in place to help lead the church, they are not perfect and they will make mistakes and that is where your own personal prayers, reading scriptures, following prompting of the spirit comes in. The church job is not to spoon feed us only the things we love and set aside the things we don't.
Brigham Young also spilled the beans... Schuyler Colfax's conversation with Brigham, June 17, 1865. The matter of polygamy was brought up by Brigham, himself, and in the course of his remarks he is reported to have declared that "... the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants declared for monogamy, but that polygamy was a later revelation commanded by God to him and a few others, and permitted and advised to the rest of the church." From Schuyler Colfax's Journal, quoted in The Western Galaxy, Vol. I, p. 247. Brigham Young tells Senator Lyman Trumbull “polygamy, which you object to, was not originally a part of our system, but was adopted by us as a necessity, after we came here [Utah]” - (Brigham Young, interview with Senator Lyman Trumbull, July 10, 1869; published in Chicago Tribune July 26, 1869;)
@@clayfullmer 😂 still he claimed it more than once, which is more times than Joseph ever did. It just highlights how pro-polygies disregard and omit things. How they prioritize much shakier accusations, and provable lies over simple plain statements like these.
She already has material covering this. She is doing what other professional historians have failed to do due to being tightly tied to the narrative. Well, I take that back - some. Those who have honestly looked at the quality and provenance of some of the important history have been removed from their positions or excommunicated.
Brian’s best “cherry”, what he leads with, his most rock solid “contemporaneous” evidence from Joseph Smith’s own hand writing, is his July 12, 1843 entry in his own journal about receiving a revelation in the presence of Hyrum and William Clayton. Then he admits that we don’t know what that revelation was. Brian did a bait and switch here. Joseph Smith’s journal entry was contemporaneous. William Clayton’s journal entry was not contemporaneous. Brian’s only evidence is William Clayton’s journal entry. The entire polygamy narrative rests, not on Joseph Smith’s writings and actions, but on a cabal of deceivers fabricated evidence after Joseph was martyred. William Clayton’s journal is a demonstrably proven fabrication after the fact and was not written contemporaneously. There are no witnesses confirming any of William Clayton’s writings. Talk about cherry picking! Why doesn’t Brian talk about all of the cherries that show that William Clayton’s was not of reputable character, and his journal was not contemporaneous but was rewriting whatever history Brigham wanted. Why doesn’t he mention the many other narratives in this web of lies that tell conflicting stories on when this revelation was received? Go and see for yourself the actual documents and research the history of William Clayton’s life and these journals that he unquestionably was creating for a fabricated history. When you read about Joseph’s life and his writings and teachings and compare them to Brigham’s life, his writings and teachings. Well, even Brian disavows what the early church leaders said about polygamy as their record is a stomach turning abomination. That is the strongest evidence that polygamy was a deception of Satan. Go and read what these early church leaders openly taught. We saints need to come to terms with our own history and recover from past errors. This great battle that Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, and others against polygamy was being waged at the time of D&C 124. Really study that section and come to terms with these words of the Lord. 46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them. 47 And it shall come to pass that if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord. 48 For instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads, by your follies, and by all your abominations, which you practice before me, saith the Lord. The church was literally brought to the brink of destruction and the Lord had to use the US government to stop his people from practicing this abomination. Read Jacob 2 31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. 32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. 33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
I disagree with CWIC Media and Brian Hales. Therefore obviously I disagree with the LDS Church narrative on polygamy to this day. I am a great-great grandson of Brigham Young through Zina D Huntington. I grew up being taught the LDS narrative all through my life. It wasn't until my later years, around 2016 I read the 3 volumes of "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" by Pamela and Richard Price that started me to think for myself and I went to the Lord and asked Him who started Polygamy? Is Polygamy God's law or the Devil's law? Is Polygamy a true doctrine or a false doctrine? Guess what the Lord asked me to do? He said "Go to the scriptures starting in the Bible and then forward to the restoration and find out where it started, and that would be my [Gods answer] answer." So I did just that and found out that "Polygamy" started from the seed of Cain, a people who turned away from "God" eternal pattern of marriage [one man one wife], and it spread from their throughout the world. What the Prophet Joseph Smith was taught by the Lord was D&C 42, this section was called "embracing the Law of the Church" and guess what is says? Besides laying out the 10 commandments... It says: "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. 19 And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. 20 Thou shalt not steal; and he that stealeth and will not repent shall be cast out. 21 Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent shall be cast out. 22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else. 23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out. 24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 42:18 - 24) What Brian Hales teaches and what the LDS Church teaches today along with CWIC Media teachings on this subject are "false doctrines" when it comes to who started polygamy in the LDS Church and when they insist that Joseph Smith lived, practiced and received a revelation D&C 132, they are "Lying," see verse 21 of D&C 42 above and promoting the lie. Polygamy has NEVER, past, present or future been a law or commandment from God to mankind. If you want to read my whole experience, click on my picture icon. By the way I am STILL MORMON [LDS] enjoy the temple experience and fellowship with the saints. I have written 7 letters to the 15 in Salt Lake City headquarters, sharing my research and testimony that the Prophet Joseph Smith was true and faithful to Emma and never taught or practiced polygamy but fought it his whole life!
@@jasonandersen5975 The Lord needs honest and righteous people everywhere to be bold and speak the truth without fear! That is what I do. Part of the "spirit of Elijah" is to seek out my ancestors and call them to repentance until our "hearts" become one in Christ. For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there-and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just? 27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 38:26 - 27)!
@@kencard6657 mmm, OK. What does that have to do with my comment? (I realized my previous comment was addressed to someone else; I meant that to be a response to your original comment. I have corrected that. )
@@isaiah-4310 A lot of allegations and gossip; Michelle and the scriptures exonerate Joseph and God of polygamy and polygamy teachings. That is called evidence.
Point #5 we have to weigh out the evidences presented before us. Option #1 is believe Brian and his VERY late resources where people had motive to lie about Joseph being a polygamist and use all of Joseph’s enemy’s rumors and claims. Or Option #2 is to believe Joseph’s claims from his own mouth, believe Emma and JSIII who lived in all the houses where he would have known if there were extra wives and he said there weren’t, and Hyrum who was co-prophet of the church with Joseph and he clearly in VERY harsh words condemned polygamy including the fact that he would call the devil his brother over a polygamist. If his brother was a polygamist he would never had said that. There’s also the lack of any kind of physical evidence like babies, letters to wives, dates of marriages written down (why were the wives sealed to Joseph AFTER his death???? 🙄), letters to wives, presents to wives, etc. we also have no evidence of other women claiming to be Joseph’s wife going to the church for money other than Emma, no one going after his assets of grieving as a wife with Emma when Joseph died. So many more things. Do your own work and research. It’s extremely clear that option #2 has the stronger evidence and #1 is weak as wet toilet paper.
AMEN! I have researched hundreds of hours. I did not take this journey lightly. And in scripture, God ONLY CONDEMNS and or SUFFERS because of polygamy, he NEVER COMMANDED IT! There is not Jacob 2:30 cherry pick verse loophole!
@@BridgeBuilder-x4cAnd yet so many individuals lying in their journals about their experiences and witnesses? Rank and file members doing this not because of their actual experiences but to perpetuate a lie? The sheer number of them cannot be minimized. And then to piggyback on that and to throw out the temple aspect of it and then to another game gigantic conspiracy about BY and others killing JS just sounds ridiculous. The collective historical record of the saints does not support the no polygamy by JS theory. The majority of saints were sincere, God fearing people. Pulling off so many people recording things in their personal journals that wouldn't even be seen til after they die would be a monumental feat. Putting all the leaders aside how could so many people record things that were not true? It doesn't make sense.
Brian has no trouble saying that Joseph Smith told “bold faced lies”, so why is he surprised that the polygamy deniers think William Clayton told “bold faced lies”? Isn’t it obviously that someone is telling lies in this controversy? I’m shocked people like Brian think Joseph was a **consistent** liar on the topic of polygamy.
Brian Hales does not suggest that Joseph told "bold faced lies." He has repeated that Joseph's statements were "carefully worded denials," allowing for ambiguity about what he was actually saying.
You are correct Greg falsely accusing someone is not okay. And in this case doing so is speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, the man who you believe is the prophet of the restoration, the man who gave you the BOM and the church you believe in. Accusations he refuted throughout his life and that led to his death. I would say that is a pretty big deal and highly important thing to be on the right side of. The evidence exonerates Joseph from the false accusations and those who ignore and deny those facts will have to answer for it.
@@justinlabar7352you're not doing this? Check out 132 Problems podcast. The evidence on the other side is MUCH more compelling. Will you ignore and reject that?
Polygamy is how we got the covenant House of Israel. If they were evil and polygamy an abomination God would have said so about them. Instead of giving us scripture about why and when He calls people to live it.
@@LdsTiktokPreservation God did not give us scripture about why and when He calls people to live it. God calls many wives and concubines a crime, whoredom, and abomination.
Why did they wait so long after reaching the safety of Utah to reveal D&C 132? And why did Emma state the first time she heard of any such revelation was when it was published in the SEER in 1853? And it is a tragic coincidence that Mary Fielding Smith, Hyrum's widow, was sick and unable to attend the conference when D&C 132 was revealed and never recovered dying shortly thereafter. She was the only person in Utah that could have confirmed or denied if Joseph and Hyrum were really involved in polygamy.
Mary Fielding ended up becoming one of Heber Kimball's plural wives. She went west with Brigham. She is actually potential evidence to the contrary of what you're trying to say. 🤷♂️
@@justinlabar7352 She was never a plural wife to Brigham. She was allegedly married to Heber prior to making the trek west. The strange thing about that is one would think if she was married to such an important man as Heber she would have been taken better care of and treated better than she was on that trek but according to stories we have of it, she was treated horribly and was lucky to have made it. She was under Heber's care at the time of her death. Married to Heber and going west doesn't make her evidence to the contrary of what I am saying whatsoever. The fact that she was the only reliable living person in Utah who could have confirmed or denied Joseph and Hyrum's involvement and if D&C 132 came from them but was not in attendance at the conference and died shortly after is a strange, tragic coincidence. Almost as strange as Samuel Smith dying, a month after his brothers were killed, while being given a white powder daily.
@@nostoppingit7243 You're correct. Some were sealed to Brigham. Some to Heber. It was Heber she was sealed to. Which, of course, doesn't change the point. 😉
Leonard Soby lied about how the affidavit came about so how can be trust that he didn't lie in the affidavit itself? He also leaves out that Soby was disfellowshipped. He also doesn't explain why if Soby was against polygamy that he stayed with the church for almost 18 months after the alleged revelation was read to him, until he was finally disfellowshipped.
You seem like an honest guy. If you made a list of all of Brian's sources that he mentioned along with all of Michelle's sources and studied them all out for yourself, you would agree with Michelle. Brian speaks like his conclusions, even about specific documents and situations, are obvious and conclusive, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Not only do they have more holes than Swiss cheese, it is really hard in several instances to not think Brian is intentionally deceptive.
I don’t think he’s deceptive but he wants to believe it because he’s been married to 3 women. Honestly, maybe it will work out for all of them if that’s what they all want, but I can’t get on board with this celestial law and polygamy argument. I know polygamy is not required for exaltation
@@godsoffspring4195great question-my problem is that so many people believe it is. The primary president in my ward said she was going to stop homeschooling her kids in math and start teaching them they may have a new mom soon. MANY people in the church believe polygamy is a requirement for the Savior to return and that it is celestial law. This thinking affects culture as well. There is a man in my ward who is married to a woman who was sealed to her first husband, but he died. He cannot be sealed to her in this life because she is already sealed. My FIL actually told my husband’s mom he would not marry her unless she broke her temple dealing with her dead husband. There are so many widows in the church single men will not even date because they have been sealed before. And don’t get me started on all the fundamentalist groups still practicing because they believe in some of the things Brigham Young said.
@@ED-wired This is the perfect example!! If the Church was still living the law of marriage that Joseph Smith DID teach , your friend would be at liberty to marry again without worry. Joseph Smith stated that the Marriage Doctrine of the Church is one man and one woman. If either of them die the other was at liberty to marry again. See (1835) Doctrine and Covenants section 101 and (1844) Doctrine and Covenants section 109. He was very very clear on the doctrine and it is what he taught and lived and believed so much so that he fought polygamists of his day and strongly disciplined those who were caught teaching, preaching or practicing or accusing him of practicing the 'doctrine' of plurality of wives. He stated it in publications, scriptures, speeches and to his friends and trusted church leaders. Those he did NOT trust were some of them who were pretending to be close to him.
So he practiced polygamy. SO WHAT?? This church is not based around Joseph Smith, it’s based around Jesus the Christ, the savior of all the world. Go read the Book of Mormon to gain a testimony, not Joseph smith’s life story. Good grief. These arguments are getting old. The world practices “polygamy” nowadays, but not married! They call it polyamory. So which is better, to have more than one lover, and be married to neither of them, or to have more than one lover, and to marry them? Get some perspective, haters. Go read the Book of Mormon and learn about Jesus Christ.
The problem is that people today, in your ward, think it is a law of the celestial kingdom and we will need to practice it again. This is totally false thinking. President a Hinckley said it is behind us and Elder Cook said nobody in the general councils of the church think we will be practicing it again. The other problem is members don’t really know the history. I can agree with Bro Hales on that. The history is so sketch around Joseph Smith practicing it. You can listen to either side present arguments but unless you go read the documents yourself and ask God yourself I don’t think anyone really has the full story.
@@ED-wiredHonestly! Even if it was a Celestial practice it doesn't matter. If you desire and want to be Celestial you will have a willingness and a desire to give your will to God. I am not worried about the possibility of plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom. I am more worried about living and obeying now so that I can be with my family forever. Not just with my earthly family, but to live with God the Father in his family. Everyone gets so myopic in their vision of what things will be like. Many think their narrow self-centered view is how things should be. The truth is we have no clue what eternity will be like. We also have a tendency to judge the past based on our own bias and world view. We struggle to allow our will to be swallowed up in God's will. We want it our way. We want life to be easy. We don't think life is fair. We want God to fix everything and make it work for us. We all struggle with selfishness.
I totally agree with you. It is more important to have a relationship with Christ and a testimony of the Book of Mormon than to worry about Plural Marriage.
You need a testimony of Joseph Smith the prophet because that's where the book of Mormon came from. Otherwise you can't really reason your way out of being Protestant. I believe there will be far more jarring things than polygamy in the world to come for those who focus on their own selfishness.
@@ED-wired I personally know people who use D&C as a way to practice polygamy in secret while trying to be active members of the church. They justify this by saying Joseph practiced in secret so why can't we?
I don’t care about this issue. It does not shake my faith. Do I believe that Joseph Smith saw AGP’s the Father and His Son Jesus Christ? Yes. Do I believe that Joseph was given the keys of the Priesthood and every subsequent prophet following had these keys given during his leadership? Yes. Then, this subject matter is void for me. To say the least that I would not be here on this earth had polygamy not been in force at that time. LOL My 3rd GG had several wives. I personally believe I come from very strong, faith believing stock. I’m excited to one day meet my grandparents again and say thank you for keeping the faith 🙏🏻
It’s not a question of shaking your faith, it’s a question of the means of exaltation according to the supposed revelation. It claims to be Doctrine, so it cannot be ignored. “The principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines”
You obviously care about this issue or you wouldn’t listen to this or comment on it. The truth is very important especially when we still teach and practice polygamy in the church. Men can still be sealed to many wives where women whose husbands pass away cannot be sealed to any other. The reason why this is so important is because God is not the author of confusion nor can he lie. This issue will continue to march forward because of truth. When we repent of our past mistakes as a church and shed some terrible cultural beliefs such as the infallibility of our leaders (We teach that God will take their lives), and also it is undeniable that Brigham’s faulty view on women and polygamy was brought into our temple endowment. Also, please understand what a trial of faith this is when members and investigators discover that they have been deceived about our history. Brian is a deceiver and that does not strengthen faith.
Boy Greg, Things really get heated on this topic. I personally think it is more valuable for all of us to gain a testimony of Christ and His Doctrine. READ, STUDY, FAST, PRAY, PARTAKE OF THE SACRAMENT, WORSHIP IN HIS HOUSE, SEEK HIS GUIDANCE FOR OUR LIVES, SEEK TO KNOW HIM AND HIS WILL, AND SEEK THE COMPANIONSHIP OF THE HOLY GHOST. If we choose to study the history of the church we should understand that we do it with our personal bias and judgement. I honestly think we should go to the Lord and seek His help to better understand what he would have us learn. I'm not saying that we shouldn't study the history, but I am saying that we need to understand that we have a limited view and understanding. I will personally accept His wisdom in all things over my own. If we seriously study the scriptures we can see that from the time of Adam and Eve we have been an imperfect and fallible people. God has used imperfect people through all generations of time to accomplish His work. Our wisdom and understand are limited by our own knowledge, understanding, and weaknesses. God is all wise and will judge every man, woman, and child with exactness and mercy. I learned at a young age to judge the actions of others and still love the person. I think a lot about the beam and mote in the scriptures. I also think we see through a dark lens with limited knowledge and understanding. I hope and pray we as members can come to understand that our ways are not God's ways.
I used to be very embarrassed/ashamed/terrified of polygamy. But then I just ask God to show me everything there is to know about section 132. I was cured of everything. I am not afraid or ashamed of this law. I know it comes from God and it is divine. No one can make me feel ashamed of this law.
@@ED-wired No, all of it is divine and of God. The only reason why anyone would be ashamed and embarrassed of plural marriage is because they are moral cowards like I used to be.
@@MrRugbyrugbyrugby so why do you think that God would confirm 132 as from God to you, but to others that pray about it they get confirmation from God that it is not all from Him?
@@RonkerRoom the scriptures say that there are many false spirits in this world giving false revelations to the children of men, deceiving them into thinking that they are the ones with the truth and not the prophets and apostles. The test to know if the revelation or impression you have received is of God or of the devil is that the Holy Ghost will never give you a revelation that contradicts what the first presidency had declared to be doctrine. If your spiritual impression are in line with what the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve say to be true then you know it is truth. If at anytime you have a spiritual impression come over you that is in opposition to the words spoken by the living prophets you know that it was not the Holy Ghost but it was the Devil. The living prophets unanimously declare that section 132 is gods truth. Because of that we know it to be true and anyone who comes out in opposition to that statement, according to the scriptures, is a false prophet. Michelle Stone fits that description I think perfectly.
I have not found anywhere in the scriptures where God tells men to take another wife as in a commandment , only where he says its an abomination. As far as i have seen it was a tradition , some were given as gifts by other rulers. Implied does not mean divine command.
Also, no one wants to talk about the JST translations in the Old Testament that talk about the wives of David and Solomon. Joseph Smith, in his corrections of those stories, makes it very clear that God does not approve of polygamy. And then you also have the entire Book of Mormon narrative, which is very clear that God is against polygamy. So how do you justify this? These people who are looking into this issue are not kooks, they are intelligent, faithful people who want to know. Also, it is very hard to determine actual facts when looking at history. We have to remember that Joseph and Hyrum were murdered. Emma did not want to go with the main body of the church. No one is really ever going to know the reasons behind these.
@@risefromthedust I have read the JST corrections specifically looking for changes that would denounce polygamy because of "Still Mormons" recent video. The JST does not denounce polygamy. As for Jacob 2, I believe the more common interpretation holds up especially when you consider that about 15 people in the Bible had plural wives and most were considered righteous. Israel(Jacob) practiced polygamy. I don't think we can claim that this was just a vestige of Lamech's Sin as some claim it was for Abraham. We know Lamech was not righteous but I would point out that polygamy was never specifically cited as one of his sins. How about Gideon? There is even evidence that Moses also had plural wives.
@@reinvented4209Exactly. It's like the guy above you actually hasn't read the JST of those verses but simply saw someone else make that claim and he repeated it here.
@@reinvented4209 Jacob 2-3 says God "suffered" polygamy in the old world and jerusalem. Why because it breaks the hearts of women and the children lose confidence in their fathers. Read Jacob 2-3 more carefully. There is no loophole in 2;30 And The Lord declares polygamy to be the GROSSER CRIME And and abomination and a whoredom--I call that also condemnation And, Jacob's people knew better than to try to justify polygamy on Abraham and Jacob 132 has been shown to be a forgery, and as evidence it is filled with false doctrines, including the heavenly caste system for women of wives and concubines. NO WOMAN or GIRL, should be subjected to this sickening language in the abomination of a fake scripture. Ill have to wait on the Lord to change the Church But in the meantime, I refuse to teach it and I will teach my children, my stewardship that monagamy is always Gods law.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c I disagree with your interpretation. First of all there is no mention of Abraham and Jacob's plural wives as an abomination. Only David and Solomon who did indeed have plural wives that were NOT given to them. That was the abomination. Abraham and Jacob did nothing that wasn't commanded of them. I think you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to say that Jacob 2:30 is not speaking about plural wives. Sorry I have read it over and over and can't accept anything else. And just another nitpick ... I assume you are just trying to summarize Jacob 2 according to your understanding. However, Jacob 2 does not say that God "suffered" Polygamy in the old world. It says that God will not "Suffer" that the Nephites shall do like unto them of old. The meaning is different. I have read very carefully and I believe the totality of Scripture supports D&C 132. Yes Jacobs words can be confusing but it is not the only place in the scriptures that can appear contradictory. I believe the contradiction can be explained by understanding that David and Solomon did commit abominations and Jacob was speaking in an extremely harsh manor trying to get his people to repent of the same abominations. Unauthorized polygamy.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4cThere's a lot of ambiguity in Jacob 2. Yes, I know what it says. And what Chapter 1 and 3 say. In Chapter 2 Jacob is speaking in a way that is aiming for the men to catch his drift while stopping short of having to say everything outright when women and children were present. Jacob is mainly rebuking them for fornication and saying that since they can't keep from fornication (partly because of their pride and riches) then the commandment to Father Lehi to have only one wife for the time being should still be observed. (Yes, I know there's more to it than that.)
Brian employs the same tactic used by the author of The CES letter (it's called gish gallop) He presents a mountain of so-called evidence, and then claims that he is correct because of the sheer volume of information he presents. He never provides proper proof or context and he never answers direct questions. Rather than refuting specific claims made by the monogamy advocates, he accuses them of apostasy. I also have a really hard time believing that Brian just "made a mistake" when he said Joseph Smith III hadn't included a question to his mother about polygamy on his notes. Either he has a habit of subconsciously filtering out information that doesn't align with his preconceived views, or he lied. Either way, he can't be trusted to be objective on this subject. Also, the sources he unquestioningly cites make me sick. Most of them were enemies to Joseph Smith. Joseph was told his name would be had for good and evil throughout the world. Is it any wonder that Brian can find so many instances of people speaking evil of Joseph? D&C 122:3.. "Thy people shall not be turned away by the testimony of traitors"
YES IT DOES! That is the entire point of this whole argument. Many have come to the knowledge that Joseph Actually DID NOT live polygamy. He DID insist publically through courts and meetings and personal visits with trusted friends that he DID NOT do it. He DID condemn others who did. This is why WE believe Joseph Smith. He was NOT a liar. He didn't live polygamy. He said he didn't do it and he condemned the practice and the people who did. He was not a liar.
I think it's really important to understand the effects on both men and women in a polygamous marriage, which are not positive. I know God's plan is monogamous because that's what brings true joy when a man and woman cleave to each other. Women and children are harmed in any other relationship type. AND it is a hardship on men to provide for multiple families and to not be around for their wives and children. It is like a divorce situation. See ya next week Dad! No.. God's plan is that the woman and her children are taken care of by a man and not to have her heart ripped apart for eternity. I am serious about this. Jacob was right about the abomination it is.
There are three books written after 45 years of research by the Prices with loads of information about how Joseph fought polygamy. It makes a lot of sense.
I would like to list the effects of polygamy: sexually transmitted disease, poverty, heartbreak, lonely women, children not raised by a father, more abusive, no cleaving, less children per woman, deprivation of sexual relationships between spouses, women being less than women (no equality in the relationship). Effects of one man one woman: equal relationship, hearts cleaving to each other, children have both Father and Mother, sexual disease doesn't spread or happen, hearts are not broken when true and faithful to the covenant, a home built together, the fruits of joy and love!! God wants this for all of his children!! He allowed those who came from the cochranites to practice what they thought was right so the wrong Fork in the road could more quickly be found out. The church does not approve of such relationships for a reason. ❤️
Another aspect of this whole thing is the hypocrisy of saying that it’s unfaithful to say things that go against the church narrative (which Brian created so he’s really just saying no one should go against him) but everyone is ok with how Brigham threw Emma and Joseph’s whole family- his kids, his mother, under the bus. Brigham treated her extremely poorly, said she was responsible for his death, that she was the wickedest woman on earth, etc. But she wasn’t a church leader so it’s ok?!? She had to have been one of the most righteous women on earth or she wouldn’t have been chosen by god to do all she did alongside Joseph. We will answer to Joseph and god for how we have treated her. When the BofM talks about widows being treated badly I always think of her. I’ve heard some say that because she didn’t hold keys she’s not as credible, that’s simply not true. Someone who holds keys is just as human as the next person. They have the capacity to do good just like anyone in their calling but it’s not a rule that they always have been the most righteous.
Even now, decades later, I find myself wondering if the contaminated scalpel that landed in my arm was any more toxic than the venomous contention that infects our civic dialogue and too many personal relationships today. Civility and decency seem to have disappeared during this era of polarization and passionate disagreements. President Nelson April 2023.
“I can’t believe in 2024 I’m defending polygamy”.. Well, I can’t believe in 2024 we are watching polygamy apologists, who claim to be active believing members in good faith, use the same contemporary sources that Joseph’s enemies used to accuse him (which he continually denied in public and private until his dying breath) to now “prove” that he practiced polygamy. It’s absurd that this guy then claims polygamy deniers (aka people who believe Joseph Smith was an honest man) are the ones flirting with apostasy. Unbelievable.
The DNA argument isn't a good one because: 1. Only 7 possible offspring have been looked at (and ruled out) but they weren't even the best possible choices for who could have been his offspring 2. They've never looked at possible children that were more likely candidates 3. Females are notoriously difficult to test, so daughters likely can't be identified due to how DNA testing is currently done. As of right now, only 1 female has been ruled out and it cost so much money to look into that one female that others have never been tested. So if you take out 50% of the possibilities right off the bat due to testing limitations then you've got a pretty poor argument that he never had children with other women. 4. Three of the possible offspring of Joseph's died without having children of their own and their graves are unknown so they will never be able to be tested. All it would take is for one of those children to have actually been Joseph's and the entire polygamy-denial movement would unravel in a moment.
@@cameronsmith5786 so what you’re saying is that there is zero proof of polygamous offspring from Joseph yet we have scores of “matches” for the apostles during that time…..hmmmmm
@@bobbyshiffler80 Jospeh Smith only lived polygamy for three years before he was murdered. No man in Nauvoo was having offspring with their polygamous wives because it was too dangerous. Catherine Phillips Smith was a plural wife of Hyrum Smith and she testified that she had to move to St Louis because of the prejudice against plural marriage in Nauvoo was great that it made it dangerous and she had to conceal her identity as one of Hyrum’s wives and leave Nauvoo. Hyrum like Joseph Smith died before they could live polygamy safely in the Rocky Mountains like the rest of the Apostles.
@@cameronsmith5786 Wrong. They DID look at the most likely candidates. Go back to your source and check it again and weigh it against the actual evidence.
I guess it’s interesting that all of us born into or converted to the church are told the same narrative about polygamy but so many, after pondering and searching come to a different conclusion and are STILL faithful.
His opening remarks are "I think" and then a rapsheet of conjecture and heresay built upon it in the color of "research". No depth or motive discovery as to the characters of said research though.
If polygamy was for the purpose of raising up seed, can you explain why Brigham only fathered about as many children as he had wives, and those children by only a small handful of the wives? Wouldn’t way more children be born if those women had married monogamously? I know a single woman who had 15 children with one husband, polygamy is not needed to generate lots of kids. And for the kids to have an actually present father, and the wives to feel like equal partners, polygamy destroys families.
To Brian’s point #1 there are issues with the idea that Emma burned the copy that Clayton wrote down (when he never was a scribe for any other revelation and was only a financial clerk for Joseph for a few months before he was removed because of dishonesty) because Kingsbury had nothing to copy since it was burned. Also, Brian says it’s a problem that those that believe Joseph say that these people were lying. You have to choose either Joseph and those close to him to be liars, or the weaker and late evidences of others who were not close to Joseph being liars. Can you blame us for believing Joseph? Another point is Brian says that other polygamist’s relationships were hidden at the time as well and that is 100% false. We can read clearly about Brigham and Heber’s polygamy and they were the ring leaders that infiltrated the church with it.
All it takes is some slight digging on Brian’s “sources” and it doesn’t take long to find out that Joseph never taught it and Brigham’s crew were looking to exploit the women of the church
There is cherry picking coming from your side of the argument as well. The Lord says in Jacob 2:24-26 that David and Solomon having many wives and concubines was abominable. That he led the Nephite people out of Jerusalem to raise up a righteous branch and that he will not suffer that the Nephite people shall do like unto them of old. In other words, he will not suffer the practice of polygamy among the Nephite people. If the Book of Mormon is the most correct book and if God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then why is polygamy bad for the people in Jerusalem and bad for the Nephites, but ok for the Latter-Day Saints? Could this be a logical error on your part? Also, you agree that polygamy is hard and mean to women, but that is no reason why God wouldn't command it. You describe this as an emotional argument. Yet you completely disregard Jacob 2:31-33; 35 where the Lord has compassion for these women. He has heard the mourning of his daughters in the land of Jerusalem, and the cries of the fair daughters of the Nephite people. He will curse and destroy those who lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness. In Jacob 3:5-6 he commends the Lamanites for not practicing polygamy. So was God lying in Jacob, or is he lying in D&C 132? Joseph was aware of God' feelings regarding polygamy in Jacob. Would Joseph just accept God changing his mind without questioning it? Without some internal or spiritual struggle? Is there any evidence to indicate that this is the case? Just saying.
I recommend also Karen Hyatt: Woe unto you scribes: The hidden history of polygamy" podcast. She has put together a fabulous, easy to follow rebuttal to Brian's claims. Brian's best evidence is a house built on quicksand. He took some big leaps of woke illogic. But now the dialogue can progress.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c Like Mr. Hales’ references, I’ll check Ms. Hyatt’s against other sources for veracity. With all internet discussions, “Trust, but verify” applies.
"I don't think Joseph would have done that, it's really bad for women" has nothing to do with God moving upon people to search for the truth and exonerate an innocent man from false accusations that led to his death. It is the flimsy evidence that you based your narrative on that is the problem. Evidence that you, Brian, as well as actual historians, have said was "greatly lacking", "flimsy", "problematic" or "ambiguous"
This marks a major change in tone for Brian. He's been marching with the flag "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a dum dum rehashing old RLDS lies and conspiracies and anyone who doesn't get on board is in defiance of the brethren and their membership should be at stake." Now he's saying things like "They have some great points." Did he actually attempt to respond to the actual claims made about source documents from the "Polygamy deniers" and realize his story has holes? Did he get a message from his authorities to soften his stance promoting a spiritual firing squad for his detractors? Does he see that in time he is going to have to backpeddle many of his stances and he's wanting to make room for that? Has his arrogance and weak sources for his conclusions been pointed out too many times and he was forced to eat some humble pie? Just wondering.
I heartily disagree with Brian. And I have seen an astonishing amount of derision without evidence coming from his camp. If we defending Joseph and the Lord resort to that, it won't be so clear we are on the Lord's errand...
First of all…Brian Hales?!? Really?!? In the textbook for Logical Fallacies and How to Recognize Them, next to the section on “Appeal to Authority”, there’s a picture of Brian. Whenever he’s cornered by evidence a layperson uncovered, he’s like, “Well…no REPUTABLE historians agree with that…” Secondly, Brian gives the example of the SUPPOSED link between Joseph vaguely mentioning a revelation and William Clayton saying it was about instituting polygamy. He then says that his opponents have to give some example of what other revelation Joseph DID give. No. No we don’t. HE’S the one making the claim, the onus is on him. Thirdly, dripping with self-righteousness, he says that he doesn’t like to use monikers like “polygamy deniers”…and then proceeds to say it over and over again. We aren’t polygamy deniers. We’re Joseph, Hyrum and Emma defenders. Lastly, when Brigham said in his journal that he “spent the evening revising church history”, then EVERYTHING becomes suspect.
AMEN, though, it is offensive how Brian talks, I will extend grace and not take offense:) Brian, some say when you are in a hole, quit digging. It is getting more apparent polygamy house is built on quicksand. Not less. The more you explain.
@@tgray747 I believe it’s on page 132. The other odd thing about that page is how it reads unlike ANY other page in the book…long and verbose legal-ese. It has so many run-on sentences and unnecessary verbiage, it makes it almost unreadable, regardless of content.
As a Smith and descendant of Hyrum through the patriarchal line, I never researched the sources of what I was taught about polygamy and our family history but I will try to explain what I remember of it here. I was taught that the initial revelation or restoration of plural marriage came as Joseph asked the Lord about Hebrew practice of taking a brother's widow to wife and seemingly "allowed" biblical plural marriage in general. The resulting revelation was unsettling to both Joseph and Hyrum because it revealed plural marriage to be a sound doctrine revealed and practiced in every dispensation, not as eternal principle of exaltation but as a tool used by the Lord when the need or occasion arises. My personal opinion is that Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage to a degree because he was resistant to its restoration. I think Hyrum saw how quickly this could take on another form and be abused and so he pushed back on it generally being practiced in the church. Even Hyrum's first born son John was resistant to practicing it. John went west with BY and was ordained the Patriarch of the Church in 1955. He may have been the only prophet seer and revelator in Utah that refused take a second wife. After constant pressure from BY he did take a second wife. He seemed ashamed of this and even hid her existence from his RLDS family which he still was in communication with. His wiki page has some interesting details about this. Anyways, the gist of what my family taught is that our family has always felt that plural marriage was given more import in the gospel than what was intended by the Lord but that its practice in the early restored church WAS the will of the Lord.
Brian asserts a lot of things as fact without the context while simultaneously accusing others of doing that very thing. If he were interested in helping clarify things, he would go through each issue in careful detail and layout the evidence both for and against his narrative without just continually asserting his own narrative and conclusions. He's muddying the waters, at best. Very deceptive and disingenuous. His narrative and assertions are riddled with holes. He invokes implicitly many false assumptions. Sad that so few are trained enough to spot it.
My eyes have been opened but not by Brian. Michelle really helped me come to the truth regarding polygamy. Since your video with her I have really deep dived into the matter. I can say with conviction that Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma were clear on the matter and opposed its teaching to the end. Polygamy was and is an abomination and they had no part in it. God be thanked for the Prophet Joseph Smith and his testimony of Jesus Christ. Greg, I’m with you on so many topics. Open your heart. Joseph is vindicated on the matter.
Ok so my ancestors’ journals which say Joseph preached polygamy and were written when he was still alive, are all wrong by your logic? Sorry, I can’t agree with the polygamy denial movement-I have more faith in my ancestors and their testimonies than that.
Joseph does not have to be vindicated on the subject of plural marriage. Honestly you can believe whatever you want, but it brings up so many more questions and problems. If you listen to Michelle you have to come to the conviction that the church is not true. You can't sit on the fence believing that Brigham Young and other Prophets are under condemnation and believe in PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY AND THE TEMPLE! The turn around and want your temple blessings when Brigham Young became the prophet. There are too many holes in Michelle's position. Don't get me wrong, I love and care about all my brothers and sisters in and out of the church.
@@CwicShowGreg, there are many, many in that same boat. We love your content, but on this one subject Joseph, Hyrum, Emma and the LDS Canon are clear that polygamy is an abomination
Brother Joseph practiced plural marriage as he was directed by the Almighty. Brother Joseph was a prophet of God. The Book of Mormon is true. The Church is Christ’s Kingdom on the earth. Whew, so many truths and so easy to understand!
The Book of Mormon AND section 132 can't both be true. They contradict each other in doctrine and scripturally. The Book of Mormon has receipts and scriptural witnesses. Section 132 as presented has none.
Greg, I noticed that you said you found Jacob 2 to be ambiguous. I’m sure you’re familiar with both interpretations, do you lean to one being the correct reading of Jacob 2:30?
I lean toward many men in Jacob's community living polygamy like they were doing in Jerusalem at the time of Lehi. With v30, I lean toward an exception where it is sanctioned for a period of time.
@@CwicShow I think the alternate explanation for this verse often gets over complicated. Verse 30 seems to simply be reaffirming verse 29. That’s why it starts with the word For, it’s a continuous thought. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 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. For God to raise a righteous branch, he will provide us with commandments. If he doesn’t, we will follow the bad examples of those before us. Verses 31-35 explain the why behind it.
One of my favorite quotes for 50:37 is “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts” - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (wrote Sherlock Holmes) Unfortunately this has been the adversary’s trick… to keep people from seeing truth. If it goes against the grain, it must be false and we can only accept what we believe to be true instead of removing our preconceived notions.
Which is why Brian should not have hired Don Bradley to prove the bias that Joseph was a polygamist. Sorry Brian, don't know if Don meant to let that slip out in his coming back podcast where he tells how the goodness of Joseph helped lead him back to the Gospel.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c For what it's worth, (from the lips of Don Bradley himself) Brian hired Don Bradley *after* he left the church. He was not a member when he was hired to do historical research. It was his historical research that brought him back after seeing evidences. This actually hits my point home.
@@NOSPAM-pb4tu Yes, I know Don Bradley's story. I like Don and I am sure if I were socializing with Brian I would like him too. So I am a little confused by your point. The evidence showing that Joseph Smith was innocent of the allegations against Joseph Smith goes against the grain of the current Church/Church Historians/Historians (Brian Hales) narratives "grain." I happen to believe those supporting that Joseph was innocent and polygamy is not supported by scripture has the more solid case. The current Church/Church historians/Historians saying Joseph was a polygamist and this is also a doctrine supported by scripture also go against the grain of people like myself, Michelle Stone, Jeremy Hoop, Whitney Horning, The Prices and those that agree. So either way it is going against the grain of someone. So am curious, just trying to understand what you are trying to convey.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c I was referring to your comment about "bias". Don Bradley didn't have a bias towards the church when he became a historian. He was against the church, so he was not in favor of these things. It was through his study of actual facts that showed him the church is correct and Joseph Smith was indeed a true prophet. I could care less about people's opinions on polygamy. We are hundreds of years beyond it, and trying to prove whether it was or wasn't supposed to happen has no bearing or effect on my salvation. People are turning it into a red herring. I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet as I know that President Nelson is a true prophet. I also know from scriptures (starting in Daniel) that once Christ's church is restored in these latter-days that it will never fall away from Christ's teachings again. I will only follow a true prophet and not some person's whimsical thoughts who has no authority to claim such things.
@@NOSPAM-pb4tu We are misunderstanding each other. You are correct. I don't want to speak for Don, but yes, I know he had left the church largely over church history and that is when Brian hired him. What I am trying to convey is that Brian hired Don to prove Joseph was a polygamist. I am trying to say that, Brian started with the premise, or bias that Joseph was a polygamist. The Church's position, since Brigham Young, is that Joseph was a polygamist. However, Heber J. Grant moved to quiet down the polygamy narrative. So it was for many people very jarring, when suddenly Bushman's "cultural biography" of Joseph Smith came out, having dredged up all the cultural opinions of Joseph Smith. And then the Church Historians and church jumped on his bandwagon. A lot of people left the Church over this. The Church then doubled down and put out the Church essay on polygamy which was pretty much canonizing the narrative. I can understand why Brian, a faithful believing member would be hesitant to take a neutral stance, because who even knew how section 132 came to be? Who knew that originally the D&C had a section declaring the law of God is monogamy? The Anti-Mormon or former Mormon beliefs are, that Joseph was a polygamist. The Church was saying Joseph was a polygamist. So what harm is there hiring someone who does not believe in the Church to do the research, for the purpose of proving Joseph was a polygamist? To Don's credit, his heart was softened, reading what a good man Joseph was and this brought him back to the Church. It puzzles me that Michelle has come up with so much information that has not been brought forward. But, maybe if there is bias, you just don't notice it. The question just is not there in your mind to look for it.
Proponents of the principle and doctrine of many wives and concubines must believe... 1) That Joseph boldly taught truth except for the highest and holiest principle required for exaltation. That one he even kept from his wife and co-President and Prophet brother Hyrum, and from his counselors, parents, etc, etc. 2) That concubinage is a principle of the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation. 3) That God sometimes commands whoredoms and abominations to build up righteous seed Really? 🤯
It is NOT a movement of denying polygamy. It is a movement of defending and exonerating an innocent man and discovering truth and who the real author of polygamy is.
@@avoice423sure he was a prophet but he got some stuff wrong. The official church position is exactly that. Perhaps, perhaps, polygamy “as practiced by Brigham Young” was also an error. You can hold this view and still be totally faithful lds
@@Heartsinmelody Adam God theory? Plural marriage and priestood, not so much. Maybe his opinions on it may have been flawed but the fact that these two things (plural marriage and the priestood ban) were not reversed for a consideral time says otherwise. We do not even now know the reason for the ban, but that several prophets prayed about it but the time had not arrived until it was lifted. As for plural marriage, beyond the grave it is still in force, as the sealings are still valid. Even the current prophet, pres. Nelson is sealed to two women. And also many of the important patriarchs had more than one wife. Are you forced to live it to be exalted? It does not seem so, but the qualities necessaty to live it successfully are celestial. So it would not supprise me if it is more common than most people think it will be in that kingdom. Why? It is logical, for the Father will provide for those who merit exaltation. How many men are more focused on the pleasures of life and materialism than family? The Celestial kingdom is all about family.
Greg, I know you view yourself as neutral and open minded but your biases come shining through by the title of the two latest polygamy programs. Why didn’t you call the Brian Hales podcast “Brian Hale’s History of Joseph Smith and Polygamy” and Michelle Stone’s episode “Proof Joseph Smith Did Not Practice Polygamy? feat. Michelle Stone”? The slant towards the church’s chosen narrative is really visible in the titles alone.
I fully agree with this. I am open-minded, but I’ve been very clear on my own conclusions. Even from the beginning with Jacob Hansen it was clear what my bias was. Michelle knew this and I repeated it to her before we even started recording. I still let her talk a lot and let her make her points. Not many people will do that when they already have their own conclusion.
@@CwicShow Greg, I appreciate the response. I believe I am seeing a pattern and want to know if you are seeing it too. It seams that TBMs generally have trouble giving room to the possibility that polygamy started with Brigham Young while many folks finding problems with the church and some of its doctrines more easily accept that Joseph Smith abhorred polygamy and fought against it. Are you finding the same thing and if so do you think those biases flow from their feelings about the church in general (i.e. if you believe what the church teaches then JS started polygamy, if you have some doubts about the church the it was all BY)?
@@marksnodgrass8384 To some degree, yes. But I think the implied point within your question is that those who believe Joseph practiced polygamy believe that Brigham Young and all of the prophets since could not have truly been prophets with such an error. And even deeper, they would not have blatantly lied and coerced the membership in their statements, journals, and affadavits.
Is there any visual that can be produced which shows where these documents belong and where they fall on a timeline? When just speaking about them, it's easy to get lost. The reason I think this would be helpful is because the main advocate for the "non-Plural Marriage by Joseph" is Michelle Stone and she also has a lot of resources that she sites. So it would be good to see them all laid out and then see the arguments as to why some sources are more weighty than others.
And I know that would require more than the average amount of resources to produce and maybe I should do it myself. But there seems to be folks who already know this and have the documents already in order.
For those who don’t believe a polygamy conspiracy could happen against Joseph Smith they should ponder on who this verse is talking to. 2 Nephi 27 27 And wo unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord! And their works are in the dark; and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us? And they also say: Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay. But behold, I will show unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding? It sounds like the Lord is going to be bringing to light works of darkness and things that have been “framed” and hidden in these verses. Anyone who thinks the Book of Mormon and Nephite prophets aren’t talking to and accusing us of these things don’t understand the Book of Mormon or Isaiah. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Brigham Young and his cohorts changed and altered history (works in the dark) so they could “frame” their own narrative. The Book of Mormon is clearly pointing towards conspiracy.
Exactly! This whole problem arises from the False Doctrine that the Prophet can never lead you astray. That idea is incompatible with the Book of Mormon and the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants.
Polygamy or not! It doesn't change my testimony of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as prophets of God. It doesn't change my testimony of the church, the Book of Mormon and Jesus Christ. My focus is now and the future. ❤
It really is something we have to put on the shelf until we get further light and knowledge. But in the meantime, I’m saying nahhh-not a good policy/doctrine/practice. Monogamy for the win
So they all recorded details about it in their individual journals because they believed a collective lie? All these journal entities are lies? That doesn't make sense and it isn't realistic. And the odds of followers and enemies of JS would cooperate in this conspiracy is astronomically unlikely. Polygamy deniers are the flat earthers of the church.
Show people completely erase their memories? This isn’t just a matter of deception, this is a matter of lying about your own experience. This is the biggest hole I see in the argument that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy.
Brian nails it with the metaphor of a grand chess match occurring between God and Satan during the early years of the Restoration, which still continues today of course. That framework is very illuminating!
The Church has been very transparent about it. Spiritually immature members, who are lazy learners and lax disciples, simply haven't bothered to understand either gospel doctrine or church history.
@@knelson3326And all Church members would have been infinitely better off if they never had been polluted by the GTE written completely by Brian Hales, which, without any compelling evidence abuses the name and true actions of Joseph Smith, who ALWAYS denied preaching or practicing "institutionaly-sanctioned adultery" (polygamy) and Always confirmed his faithful monogamous dedication to his one dear wife, Emma.
We are here to “learn how God works” -Pres. Nelson. We are here to be proved. “I will prove them herewith to see if they will do ALL things that the Lord God command them” We are here to learn obedience and submission to God’s laws and to the counsel of the prophets He has called to establish His doctrine. I really appreciate Bro. Hales defending truth.
@@Mike-nq7fn People who have no knowledge of what is really true say this. I am very sorry for those who cut the thread that binds them to our prophets and the keys they hold.
It is a valid point that this is leading people away from the rich and powerful blessings of the temple. You only have so much time to search the depths and breadth of the everlasting covenant, and this is a rabbit hole that does not seem to bear good fruit. The biggest red flag from the interview with Michelle Stone was when she said there is a "spirit of deception" with the leaders of the church. I would offer to anyone going down this rabbit hole on polygamy to turn their energies to searching to have the mysteries of Godliness and the covenant unfolded in their lives through pondering and searching covenant and the talks of President Nelson. I can personally testify that this line of research and energy will bear unimaginable good fruit in your personal life as you strive to play your part. I am sorry for my friends who have turned to this polygamy denial and have stopped going to the temple and wearing the garment. I wish they could see what they are missing in this glorious time when we are finally understanding the depths of what is offered and when maybe we are coming out of condemnation.
President Nelson asked us to study the Atonement every week for the rest of our lives. Not much better fruit than that. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. The prophet guides us to Jesus.
It's so sad to see ppl going down this rabbit hole right when we should be preparing to meet our Saviour! It grieves me to see so many holding on to past hurts or perceived slights by other members or leaders. They are throwing away happiness with both hands!
Yeah, who cares about the reality of church history. Save energy by just believing what your told in Sunday school manuals and the guys sitting up front in cushy general corporate conference leader chairs. I don't subscribe to the anti Mormon industry, I just know the Mormon Jesus is NOT the Biblical Jesus. Question LDS theologically and history. Eternity is a terrible thing to waste. Have a blessed day.
@@crazyaboutcards And Jesus only has ever called polygamy an "abomination" and a "whoredom!" Read Jacob 2-3. Stop cherry picking 2:30 out of it to twist the meaning.
I disagree, to some extent, with the claim that critics ‘have a good point’ by questioning the revelation due to the lack of Joseph Smith’s signature. Once again, the critics impose requirements that were never established. The entirety of contemporaneous evidence surrounding Joseph’s plural marriages demonstrates his belief in the principle, so much so that he acted against the prevailing social and moral conventions to carry it out. Joseph Smith’s character strongly suggests that he pursued plural marriage because he believed it was what God wanted him to do.
I loved the comment “I don’t believe in 2024 I’m defending polygamy!” That’s amazing! I knew the last days would be awesomely incredible! Yeah, I’m so thankful for Joseph and Hyrum, and all men and women that were so faithful to go against the world and their own moral paradigms to obey God. I pray I have the same strength throughout my life. I believe plural marriage is necessary only on Exaltation, in the Celestial Kingdom. If someone is aiming to the Celestial, but don’t care about Exaltation they have nothing to worry about. If anyone is aiming any other kingdom, they also don’t need to worry. Yes, I don’t think we’ll be asked to live polygamy in this dispensation, I believed we checked that box, again thanks to the early church members.
We don’t have to live polygamy for exaltation. There is no doctrine anywhere that says it is required for exaltation. Bruce R McConkie even wrote in his book on Church doctrine that polygamy is not required for the exaltation.
Read Section 132. It absolutely claims to be a doctrine, and not only that, but a principle, meaning foundational. It literally says many wives and concubines is the way to exaltation! Take it seriously. The revelation says it’s from the Lord, take it serious or throw it out, don’t be Luke-Warm and be spewed out at the last day. We won’t be saved in ignorance, unless you believe that section was added later.
You can’t stop truth! The comment section should be a clue in! It’s great seeing so many share true history that will eventually clear Joseph, Emma and Hyrum of lying. The church will change their position on polygamy. Just like the priesthood band and all the other incorrect doctrines brought forth by Brigham. It might take time but it will happen. As President Nelson said “Good information brings good revelation.” Good information on church history is finally coming to light. Once the weight of this false tradition is lifted, we will be one step closer to having Zion. So exciting! ❤
In the little cemetery in Parowan, Utah there is a gravestone which belongs to Almera Johnson Smith Barton. She was born in 1812 and died in 1896. She was Joel Hills Johnson’s sister. The inscription in the tombstone reads: wife of Prophet Joseph Smith, wife of Ruben Barton. It also indicates that the tombstone was erected by Johnson’s relatives in 1994, almost 100 years after she died. It will be interesting to know if she used the Smith last name while she was alive (as it was indicated in her tombstone). I watched the interview with Michelle Stone and also this one with Brian C. Hales. Thank you for all you do. I enjoy your show.
Love your channel Greg. It’s the sources you choose to believe. Joseph, Emma, & Hyrum are who I trust. They weren’t using carefully worded denials, they were outright pleading with people not to believe this. The “doctrine” of wives and concubines?? I’m devastated for my ancestors who were tricked into this. I have 4 daughters & it makes me sick to my soul the shenanigans that were going on. Read the words from Christ’s mouth in 3 nephi about adding doctrine & saying it’s from Him.
I love this interview. Greg, you’re right- the question of Joseph’s polygamy is not essential for exaltation. It’s not even a temple recommend question. Most of us who have problems with the polygamy truther movement are more concerned about the things that the movement leads to, like temple denial.
"Temple denial." First time I've heard that. The whole doctrine of the family is based on 132. There is no other source. The sealing ceremony is based on 132. RMN is sealed to two women. BY had a profound influence on the temple liturgy. I have to laugh at people who devote their lives to temple worship, but completely ignore the celestial experience. You nailed it with that phrase.
Dan, you are so very wrong! Read Section 132. It absolutely claims to be a doctrine, and not only that, but a principle, meaning foundational. It literally says many wives and concubines is the way to exaltation! Take it seriously. The revelation says it’s from the Lord, take it serious or throw it out, don’t be Luke-Warm and be spewed out.
If people jump to a conclusion about temple denial then that really is devastating but two things can be true at once. Joseph can be innocent of plural marriage and the church still holds the keys. No prophet is perfect.
@@ED-wired That is a conclusion some people have come to. But there is a lot that follows, like a massive conspiracy of lying that went on for a long time among all of the top leadership of the church.
I have trouble with people stating their position with complete certainty. We all should be willing to say that there are no certain conclusions concerning polygamy and that we don't completely understand it. Some day the answers will come. There are no video recordings of the past. I really appreciate what Steven Harper said concerning polygamy. I highly respect him as a historian. He said, "There is much that I do not know. I do not know how to understand plural marriage. I have studied the complicated historical record of it diligently and there is very much that remains unclear. I don’t know exactly how to understand D&C section 132. I don’t know what to make of the problematic letter purportedly from Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon. I recently gave a talk at a leadership meeting. My topic was historical issues with which Saints sometimes struggle. I catalogued the historical problems, briefly describing each. While describing the received wisdom on plural marriage, I had a distinct and undeniable thought that came from outside me. “You do not know what you are talking about,” it said. It was right. I do not know how to think about plural marriage. I continue to thoroughly examine the historical record, seeking light and truth by study and also by faith. I do know, as a result of that process, that Helen Kimball and Lucy Walker both left testimonies that Joseph did not exploit them, and that they both testified that they received their own revelations, as Joseph invited them to do, before being sealed to him. In other words, I know that the historical record created by witnesses and participants does not match the sensational books and online material created by people who know less than I do. And I know that I don’t know." This statement is on the FAIR website under LDS Scholars testify. I'm comfortable saying that there is much I don't know. If we are trying to be critical thinkers we have to make room for the fact that there is much we don't know. To state our views on the matter as fact, even after extensive study, is presumptuous.
Hales’ point #2 is moot because he believes that Joseph was involved in a conspiracy and that that’s why he straight up lied about not practicing polygamy. Either way you have to believe in a conspiracy.
Greg, you said that you don’t know anyone that denied being a plural wife. The fact is that out of the wives that Brian claims are Joseph’s there are like 3 that actually say in their own words that they are Joseph’s wives. There are many who did actually deny being Joseph’s wife when others claimed them to be. Go to the video entitled “Woe be unto you, scribes: The Hidden History of Polygamy” Brian and other historians are apologists for polygamy and that is why they find JUST ENOUGH to give their views support, but never give the full story. This video that I shared does give the whole story.
Honestly I think it is more important to study the Gospel and follow the Doctrine. It is way more important to make and keep sacred covenants with God. STUDY, LEARN, AND BECOME ONE WITH GOD. I for one trust God to judge righteously. I reflect on a meeting I had with my Stake President. These are not his exact words, but I think his message is very important. We can't live in the past or future. Give them both to God because he is the great healer and judge. Focus on what you can do today to get closer to God and he will take care of the rest. We have such a myopic view of the world. We need to let our will be swallowed up in His. Focus on what we can do today to follow Him and serve others.
Section 132 literally lays out “the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines” According to 132 you cannot be exalted without living polygamy.
@@DerekPayne1791 haha, true; 132 is filled with such nonsense counter to the Gospel. Women should not have to be subjected to listening to 132 and its caste system for wives and concubines
I think when it comes to history, personally I can't find a reason to get upset or joyous over anything. The fact of the matter is its in the past, leave it in the past, reflect on it but remain neutral. In terms of survey questions where its strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree I think its important to remain neutral. The only time for any response beyond neutral is if you've lived it yourself and if its a negative response thats beyond 20 years have you even actually learned anything from Jesus because its a blessing to forgive. Having more than a neutral response to anything beyond yourself or at least within your lifetime- ditch it. Our perception of matters 200 years ago is purely based on the 2024 mindset rather than an 1800 one, we are pansies by comparison ti them in every definition of the word so ditch the effort and ditch the emotional responses. Whatever happened to my body my choice- let them speak for themselves in the second coming not you speaking on their behalf because we don't know what its like to be in their shoes, no book, movie, song, artwork could even fully grasp it all.
Even the RLDS church whose main claim to separate from the main church was that JS didn’t practice polygamy, had to finally admit that the preponderance of evidence supported that he did.
Im straight and simple about this. A few years back this had me all confused. So I did what Id taught so many others to do; I studied it out, everything I could, and then I prayed about it. God actually did answer my prayer about this. God really did confirm to me that Joseph got it right and that He really did command to teach this principle of plural marriage. You dont have to like it, I sure didn't. But there I found myself on my knees praying, and received confirmation that section 132 was legit His words. If I could get an answer on this, anyone can. Yet what I find, is just like so many people reject the missionaries bringing the messages of this restoration to their door, so too we, as members, reject and pick and choose what we will believe and reject without seeking Gods mind about it all. We just close the door, saying "no." We know better and dont feel the need to ask Him. And yet we will at times put our noses in the air at the audacity of closed minded non members unwillingness to hear and listen to the Spirit, however there are things within that we ourselves are no better off. I invite you to study, get the Spirit, learn all you can from correct sources, abandon preconceived notions and truly ask Him. He wont ask you to pratice it since thats not currently being required, but He will answer you about His teachings and requirements to Joseph and the early church. I believe this is highly important. Now that I know for myself, IF this were to be taught again, I would not fear. However, knowing myself, if I hadn't prayed about it until I got an answer, and again, IF it were eventually brought back, I would have fallen apart. God answers the humble and true heartfelt seekers.
@ED-wired Im not seeking to tell anyone else they are wrong with answers to prayers. Only this was my experience. It surely isnt the first time two people felt compelled in different directions, hence the many different churches in the world these days.
Greg and Brian, sincere question. I do believe that Joseph introduced the endowment but what about Brighams claim that Joseph asked him to organize and systematize the ceremony afterward? Isn’t it possible that this is where much of the masonry and parts that people find troubling came from?
Joseph was a Mason. Became a Master Mason within a day or two. He borrowed some of the practice for the temple. He had a full knowledge of it. Taught it to Brigham and others.
@@CwicShow For sure, I’m not trying to deny that he was a Mason. Brighams statement just indicates that whatever Joseph revealed was added to by Brigham, as Brigham himself claims that he was asked to organize it afterward. I do believe that Masonic elements were added as a familiar teaching mechanism of that time, one that many would be familiar with.
Look up this.... Look up that.... How about we look up the word of God as accepted as scriptures for generations? Who wants to wipe out history or remake it? What kind of result has happened from doing that all over the world many times repeatedly in history?
All Karen Hyatt did was repeat the same old anti-polygamy arguments that have been regurgitated over and over again by polygamy deniers. She doesn’t even read statements in context and ignores clarifying information. She relies upon conspiracy and anti-Mormon rhetoric to shape her understanding and her documentary was fill with lies and misrepresentations of the facts.
@@stephtimms1776All of the LDS Canon calls polygamy an abomination. Yes!, use the scriptures to send the idea of polygamy back to hell where it came from. And yes that is scriptural, search Satan, Lamech and Master Mahan.
Thank you Greg for having this episode. It was well known and believed when I was growing up that it was hard for the people to practice polygamy but they did it as a matter of commandment. Not popular but true
If you look up the lds topic essay on the church website, it consistently says that the people “thought” it was a commandment. It was just their interpretation. Modern prophets and apostles have publicly taught it is not doctrinal
Brian, who has no qualifications in history (an amateur historian, if you will) has been the wrong person to try and carry this. He is like Kamala Harris - the more you get of him, the less convincing his position becomes.
@@CwicShow you miss the point - I’m saying Brian is the wrong person to carry this - he isn’t qualified and isn’t the best advocate for a position that has a lot of credibility. I would argue having a better “mouth piece” would result in less people looking at alternative narratives.
I just don’t understand how we HAVE to pick polygamy or not. Why can’t we say plural sealings? I get the argument but it initially brings up whether there were consummated relationships. Can we not focus on the spiritual?
@@ED-wired No, not every one. You're focusing too much on the numbers, not the righteous part. It means to raise up a righteous posterity, to serve God.
Yeah, Brian. Not everything Satan says is false either. Why do we refer to him as Brian C. Hales? Does he think he’s on the level of apostle? He sounds like he’s a PR guy that needs to keep status quo. He won’t take a look at anything outside of his narrative. Also, he says he doesn’t want to be disrespectful while also calling people who don’t believe Joseph was a polygamist “deniers”. Why call disrespectful names? Why not just say “those who don’t believe it”?
I have known Joseph practiced polygamy when I as a teenager back in the 80s and from that day to today it have never bothered me. Joseph clearly as not open about it but he had good reason. He learned very early in life how people can't handle truth. He told some people early on about the First Vision. He got persecution from it. He learned that some truth is best not told to people. What benefit would he have received had he openly told people about it? Would persecution decrease or increase? I believe the latter so better not to tell people than just get more problems for telling the truth openly. Joseph first priority was to God. Giving truth to enemies of the Church who would only use that to cause more problems was not a priority for him. I would have don the same. Some people just can't handle the truth thus they do not deserve to know the truth.
You nailed it. People can't handle the truth. The revisionists, be it Michelle Stone or whoever else, simply can't emotionally deal with the issue. So, they've chosen to engage in revisionist history, even if it means calling many prophets and apostles adulterers, ignoring the faith and sacrifice of many of were obedient to the practice, and undercutting the history and legitimacy of the Church.
The challenge for me is that promoting the narrative that Joseph engaged in polygamy, (while claiming to defend the church) is actually causing massive destruction to it; because in today’s world it only takes a few moments to read his denials and come to the conclusion that these are NOT “carefully worded”. They would be lies. It is this narrative that gives power to the CES letters, which in turn drives people away. Then those noticing this trend and discussing it are accused as being the source of the damage, which is ridiculous. Unless we truly believe in obscuring truth. Which I hope we don’t. So are we left with an alternative? What if those weren’t denials and we are just missing context? It isn’t like we haven’t made errors before. Sure if we believe the church is a boat or train to heaven, then we might be unable to consider that we took a left somewhere in our early history. Does anyone really believe that? That we couldn’t make a significant error and just turn back, WITHOUT accusing each other of apostasy. Wouldn’t the atonement apply to us, or are we the only organization of people who are above it, and must be right all the time? The problem is in what we THINK the church is. We assumed it was right, and everyone else was wrong, therefore it needs to be defended. But what if that wasn’t what was in Christ’s mind. What if the church is a sophisticated wrestling mat? Where we contend with the opposition that Lehi said, was IN all things NOT between all things. That the church was the best place for us to humiliate ourselves, get on our knees and ultimately yoke ourselves to Christ. The church being a catalyst and not a destination. If this were true, we wouldn’t need to be offended at an idea that a second prophet might have made a significant mistake. In fact, it might even make total sense. We wouldn’t have to accuse someone believing this as denying “keys”. In this light, the spirit may be unrestrained enough to help us see a different context to our history that makes room for the possibility that we got it wrong and that Joseph wasn’t lying. One that also gives grace to all of us, prophets all the way to members, that we can easily be deceived and we can easily repent if we were. In this arena we can have room for the variety in our beliefs, that give the opportunity for the spirit to work with us individually. God isn’t redeeming institutions, he is redeeming souls. Let’s defend each other instead.
Might I suggest that everyone here go listen to “a year of polygamy” podcast. It goes into great depth on the history of polygamy in the early church, and delve into the diaries and feelings and experiences of the women involved. Don’t be afraid
We are trained not to hear the cries of the women. Brigham Young had 10 divorces! Heber C. Kimball had 16! And so on. Polygamy was chaos and lies in the beginning, middle and end. Joseph was innocent of those allegations.
We talked about it in Seminary in 1977-78. D&C/Church History. I think 99% of the kids in class, including myself, were descendants of polygamous families in the Church. One of my great grand aunts was married to Joseph.
Over 20% of current church membership are descendants of a polygamous relationship. There are even prophets of the church who are descendants from a polygamous marriage.
@@jondaich3582 Yes. However it serves to remind members in 2024 that polygamy was a real practice and not some fairy tale as Mormons of the past have claimed. You may not believe it was a revelation from God, but over 20% of current membership in the church are descendants from a polygamous marriage. That means current members can't deny its place in history and that the church (at least after 1842) was founded on it. There children that came from these unions. Some men faced prison for practicing it. Women in the LDS church hate talking about it, but it is part of history.
I have 5 great (great great etc.) grandfathers who practiced polygamy. But in each case my line comes through the first wife. So I’m not a product of polygamy. Are you sure you are?
Just my opinion on it, but I believe members have been too afraid to stand up and say, "Yes! Joseph Smith/we practiced polygamy!" for fear of worldly ridicule, resulting in a softer and softer view on the issue over the generations. Growing up, it was always a hush-hush conversational topic. Members need to have the courage to own it.
Agreed. We have little issue talking about Israel (Jacob) practicing, and we have no obvious indication that The Lord told him too, likely it was just approved of. Here we have The Prophet being commanded to institute it in specific ways and practice it himself. I don’t feel I need to justify it to anyone, but I also don’t try to disown it. Have faith That Christ is able to do His own work.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c You are such a moral coward. I would guess that you’ll leave the church within a few years. You probably have already left the church, you just dont realize it yet.
I have not listened to the podcast. But I have talked to Brian before. And I will say that Joseph Smith did not consummate any of his marriages. Nothing in his notes said he did. No children. Yet he was very prolific with his wife Emma. And the wives that he was sealed to were very prolific with their husbands. So no consummations. But lots of Sealings.
They keep saying Fanny was a plural wife, yet the supposed timing of that dalliance dates to before the Spring of 1836. 🤔 Hmmm, I wonder why that's significant?
Because The keys had not been given yet to allegedly seal plural marriages. The Fanny Alger incident was not what Brian purports it to be. He is ASSSUMING again....
Mary Fielding Smith was married to Hyrum Smith. She later was a plural wife to Heber Kimball. I'm guessing if Joseph and Hyrum weren't supporting/practicing plural marriage, that she certainly would have known that, not gone west, and certainly wouldn't have become a plural wife to Heber. This idea Joseph did none of this is just downright ridiculous and doesn't hold up to the historical record or logic. 🤦♂️
@cwicshow regarding the segment on the World's Worst Transparency-ist Brian (@brianhales8971) is being disingenuous here. It wasn't just one interview where Brian claimed there were no notes on the polygamy question - there were multiple interviews on multiple channels where he told the same story. Furthermore, if you go back and watch those interviews he says that he "saw the notes" and that they contained information about Emma's answers regarding the Book of Mormon but not the notes on the answers about polygamy. They are the same set of notes. If he saw one part he saw the other part. He then goes on to call Joseph Smith III a liar ("I don't believe Joseph Smith the 3rd") insinuating that he just made up the answers to his mother's death bed interview. At best this is lazy research and he shouldn't be held up as any kind of expert. At worst he is intentionally being deceptive. Couple this with Brian's efforts to deplatform Michelle Stone at historical conferences, his contacting of her church leaders to try and get her excommunicated, and even some veiled threats on his part (along the lines of "you will regret this if you continue on this path") and you soon see a very different picture of this man. If you haven't watched the entire episode of the world's worst transparency-ist, (I'm guessing he only sent you the intro) I encourage you to do so.
Yes, Brian is playing the victim here but he has been relentless in his quest to silence Michelle. Rather than engaging with her on the sources he reverts to attacks on her church membership.The exact opposite of a transparancy-ist.
It's so weird that Brian is held up as an expert on this topic. I asked him a question about the Whitney "revelation", something along the lines of, "why would God tell a polygamist to cleave to this one wife and keep himself from all others?" Rather than answering my question, he countered with, "do you believe in priesthood keys?" I've never heard him answer a simple, direct question when the obvious answer would contradict his narrative. He's an apologist for polygamy, not an impartial researcher.
I'd like to point out one further discrepancy. The idea that those who Joseph Smith had already given the priesthood to do were denied access to Temples by Brigham Young because they were black add the complete disagreement between Joseph Smith and his understanding of the black race being of proper lineage. And not only baptizing them but giving them the full priesthood. And Brigham Young claiming that they were slovenly low individuals and did not deserve the blessings that the priesthood should bring to them. In direct violation of the edicts of the prophet. And the only one who ever pointed out to Brigham Young that he was a prophet was Brigham Young. He didn't take over till 3 years later, and I understand that he even had started a church of a different name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, and he was the only one in charge of that church. He had created the church out of thin air without the knowledge of Joseph Smith. And he changed the name of the church after the death of Joseph Smith. I'm sure that he understood how to make sure that paperwork was in order it would have been a lot easier than to control the narrative at that time, than it would be today. Especially when you're willing to do to people what Brigham Young was clearly capable of doing to people. And then claiming it was ordered by God himself.
I think that all this historicity is awesome. But that's not WHY these deniers deny. They deny because it seems impossible to bear. I think we should be looking at socially optimal internal social mechanics of polygamy if we are to convince deniers sufficient to remove their excuses. We all KNOW that there are wrong and abusive ways to do polygamy. But If it was ever right to practice polygamy then there has to be a RIGHT way to do it.
@@ED-wired I'm not saying it's impossible to beat. I'm descended from a second wife forced apart by the Edmunds Act. She was salty about being abandoned, not happy to get away. Course she was only the second of two, but still.
There is a problem with people who deny the prophet Joseph introducing plural marriage to the Church. It's wishful thinking by people who have not settled this issue in their psyche because of modern cultural more's coupled with their biased (traditional American Christian) views regarding the issue.
It's cute how you make assumptions and judgements about total strangers. I had settled the issue of polygamy before being led to research the subject and after 10 years and 100's of hours of research looking at literally everything out there it was very clear that Joseph wasn't a polygamist.
Our feelings about this shouldn’t matter at all. We should only be seeking the truth, regardless of how uncomfortable the ramifications would be.
Yes, The Church will not fall apart to shed the false narrative Joseph was a polygamist, or the abominable "principle and doctrine" of "many wives and concubines" was ever of God.
@@enlightenedsovereignty4892 when we speak the truth in love, we have to acknowledge feelings, no matter how counterproductive they are.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c Jesus Christ was a child of God practicing polygamy
@@noskalborg723gross, not even
God does care about our feelings
Few quick things:
I don’t always agree with Rob Fotheringham but his video showing clear discrepancies in the final 15 verses or so of the Kingsbury section 132 copy is compelling, and shouldn’t be ignored, it does call into question whether this was copied all at the same time
Franklin Richards was not in the high council meeting in August of 1843, so what he’s claiming is second or third hand
Clayton’s contemporary journal for July 12, 1843 clearly shows that Joseph and Hyrum took the revelation and read it to Emma. Clayton’s 1870’s affidavit claims Hyrum took it and Joseph stayed in the office, and that is the account that the polygamy narrative is based on, an important contradiction to note
Thank you
AMEN!
Thanks for sharing clearly.
Someone did “spill the beans” in a sense. Sarah Lawrence made it clear that she was never married to Joseph Smith and had no relationship with him. Most of the women never claimed to be married to him. Another example in a way is what polygamist wives wrote/said in public vs private. Many of these women defended polygamy publicly but in their raw private feelings, spoke about the pain and hurt it caused them. I don’t see how it’s not possible that they could have created a narrative, without specifically being threatened. Fundamentalist polygamists do this all the time.
@@Commenter2121 I think something can be said for what you're claiming they said - both publicly and privately - versus the reaction of polygamous wives when the manifesto came out putting an end to plural marriage among the saints. As we all know, Joseph struggled to find the right ways to enact not just plural marriage but other things such as tithing and the endowment. The principles were restored, but the practice was a rough start. This explains why "many of the women" might feel pained by it.
By contrast, ending polygamy seems to have been just as difficult, and there are reports (including from my wife's great-grandparents, her great-grandmother especially) that they were shocked and sorrowful to have to end the practice. It would seem that starting the practice was rough, but they eventually made it a wonderful and joyful thing.
Not quite. The only source saying that Sarah Lawrence denied being married to Joseph Smith is a quote from Sarah Mar Kimball Whitney after she left Heber C. Kimball. Like Todd Compton wrote, that's questionable as Whitney account is highly hostile to Sarah Lawrence and even claims she denied being married to Heber C. Kimball. Sarah Lawrence's life is not well documented and there is nothing that supports this account from Whitney. Many of the wives of Joseph Smith left few or no accounts of anything about their lives. That's not unusual for people of that time. It's not surprising that we don't have accounts from them about being married to Joseph Smith.
@@marktensmeyer6512 Okay, but by that logic you would need to remove the majority of Joseph’s alleged wives because they never made a first hand statement. Sarah Lawrence never claimed to be married to Joseph and via a second hand source, she even denied it. If we are not going to believe her, we better remove over half of the alleged wives. And what do you make of the women’s private vs public statements? I believe there was the woman here and there that actually enjoyed living in polygamy, but when their true feelings show it appears that they publicly said what they needed to to protect the church and its leaders.
@@DannyAGray Sorry, but you cannot support your claim. All that narrative you are giving is a bunch of made up stuff that people create because they have no actual evidence that Joseph ever taught or enacted polygamy.
@@marktensmeyer6512 Sorry but the Church admits, right in their question answer video on Joseph Smiths polygamy, that the Church does not have actual evidence that Joseph was a polygamist.
An allegation is different than a conviction.
So what that means is, with all of these--various counts of how many wives that Joseph Smith supposedly had--one count was 35! It is telling that we don't have records supporting this. I am sorry but do you have any idea the number of people that would be keeping this a secret???? That would be quite the conspiracy! Not feasible.
Here is the main issue with the claims Sister Stone and others like her, make. Greg, you asked her many times if Brigham Young, John Taylor etc, lied about plural marriage being a commandment from God taught by Joseph Smith. She kept saying she was hesitant to say that(my opinion on that is she doesn’t want to come out and say that because she doesn’t want to get excommunicated. She would basically be saying Russell M Nelson doesn’t hold the keys and isn’t a prophet) however, she kept saying modern prophets perhaps have been deceived because of false traditions. If her claims are true, it would mean dozens of early church leaders orchestrated a HUGE coverup and scandal Implicating Joseph in the process. I’m no fan of polygamy and other parts of church history, but the real issue is if we sustain the prophets from Brigham to President Nelson, we have to trust that the apostolic keys were passed from Joseph to Brigham and so on. It’s part of our history, it’s behind us. Let’s move on and focus on loving our neighbor and living the gospel instead of trying to besmirch early church leaders because we don’t like some of the early practices. I have a testimony that Joseph and Brigham were both called as prophets of God and Russel M Nelson is the living prophet today.
It was an important sacrifice and blessing. David Alexander still has the best commentary on this that I have ever heard. He was a new convert at the time but his grasp of the Bible and the gospel is extrodinary.
On top of what you said, it was pretty clear she was open to accepting the ridiculous notion Brigham and others were involved in the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum. She's lost.
Michelle Stone was in Thoughtful Saints Facebook group just a few days ago trying to convince people that the current endowment is not what Joseph Smith revealed and that sealings in the temple are not how God seals families.
Polygamy is just a theological weapon Michelle Stone uses so she can attack our Temple Ordinances
Amen!
@@jaredshipp9207It is sad how she is falling away. She is in my prayers.
So, according to these two men, if the only reason God will permit polygamy and allow it is to “raise up seed unto him,” then why is there no great influx of children in Nauvoo and why are there no other offspring/children of Joseph Smith?
That’s a good question in regards to Joseph Smith. But the time period in Nauvoo may not have enough data. I think you really have to look at Utah where it was practiced for so long.
Also, why didn’t God command Adam, or Noah’s sons to practice polygamy? If there was ever a time to have lot of babies it would be then!
Who would Adam have more children with? His Daughters? Seriously, that comment lacks common sense.
@@shanandkyleSau Eve came from a rib right? Why not pluck a few more out? I mean, this is God we’re talking about. Why couldn’t he make a few more women?
@@Kopaka-ep7ug Sure. Was there anyone to marry? Neices I suppose.
I think it is interesting that both sides of the argument contend that the group on the other side are guilty of those 5 faulty methodology approaches to the research.... Given that this topic is not peripheral - but is core to key gospel principles (the nature of the family now and in eternity, how revelation is received, the latitude that prophets, seers and revelators have in using their agency)- that I hope the conversation can continue to become more productive....
I love the answer to critics of the Abraham translation - to shift the focus from translation details to a deep study/analysis of the CONTENT of Abraham - is the content inspiring and inspired. I would love it if there was deep analysis of section 132 - focusing on the inspiration of each verse - that is what matters when it comes to our canonized scriptures.
My only comment on the statement that those who deny Joseph started polygamy are on the way to apostasy is that there were apostles in the 1960's who passionately disagreed with the priesthood ban - were they on the path to apostasy? Not a perfect analogy - but something to consider....
Agreed
One way or the other, it's ironic that Hyrum openly taught against polygamy, and never practiced polygamy while supposedly being an evangelist for polygamy.
Yes, Mary Fielding Smith only acted as a proxy for Hyrum's first wife.
29 May, "the morning after Joseph and Emma were sealed, Brigham & Mary Ann Young and Willard & Jennetta Richards gathered above the store to have their legal marriages sealed. Hyrum & Mary Fielding Smith were also there, and Mary Fielding acted as proxy for Hyrum to be sealed to his first wife, Jerusha."
True. How many men aside from Joseph are supposed as polygamists?
I believe the church may have bigger political reasons for keeping the official plgmy narrative intact. Sure, there's the succession thing,
But possibly origin/uniqueness of religion, idk another thread of reasoning fed gov could use in attempt to revoke our 501c3.
The Church has enough to deal with currently, without adding a potential can of worms like this.
Either way... the Church is true.
@@CwicShow Why do the "historians" not jump to false conclusions about the men that Joseph was sealed to? Instead, they selectively exclude those sealings from Joseph's alleged polygamy. What difference was there in their performance?
The "historians" are often provably wrong in their interpretations, but they take their queues from the oft repeated standard narrative.
@@CwicShow Joseph was the figure head of the Church, and the persona which people targeted when attacking the Mormons. I am not sure exactly how many were accused aside from him, but we know that Brigham and Willard Richards both married polygamously prior to July 12, 1842. And that is aside from them and others practicing spiritual wifery before that.
@@frankcastle5513 AMEN. Historians call it "consensus." Supposedly they are supposed to update their "consensus" when presented with new evidence. Oddly, they are doubling down on "consensus" and mocking Michelle, vs engaging with her on her mountain of very credible evidence exonerating Joseph and Emma of being polygamists. And very credible evidence, that D&C Section 132 is a fake, put forward by Brigham not Joseph.
Yes, Brian we can look at D&C 132 and we can compare it to Joseph's other revelations/sermons and it is very clear when doing so that it did not come from Joseph. Not only would he not make the mistake of listing Isaac as a polygamist or contradict what the BOM said about David and Solomon but it sounds nothing like his other revelations/sermons. If we are lazy and don't want to compare it and really look at it we can just look at Enid DeBarthes writing analysis on D&C 132 and discover that her conclusion was that it was not written by Joseph but more likely by Brigham.
And why if this revelation was so important that Brigham said you couldn't gain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom if you didn't practice it, why would he wait 5 years after they had reached the safety of Utah and persecution was no longer an excuse to reveal this important revelation that allegedly had already been out and read to the high council? Makes no sense, unless you believe in fairytales. Thankfully I don't.
I appreciate your points, but you are getting very close to spamming.
Typical of you folks. Pick and choose. 🤦♂️
26:00 ish Brian omits the fact that Brigham, Heber and Clayton all practiced spiritual wifery in England prior to the "revelation" in 1843, and prior to Joseph allegedly telling them about the principle and doctrine.
That is not true! That is a gross misinterpretation of the facts! Brigham Young talked about in his journal that the Lord was preparing his mind while he was in England and he relates spiritual experiences he had. When Joseph Smith revealed it to Brigham Young and that it was to be practiced in the last days, BY accepted the revelation because his mind had been prepared by the Lord before hand. It was hard for even Brigham Young to put it in practice just like it was hard for them women and when BY was told to take a second wife he said that he desired the grave.
@@cameronsmith5786they wrote some details about the practice and referred to "the principle" in their letters and journals. They were practicing spiritually wifery in England.
@@cameronsmith5786You are wrong. We literally have their mission journals, written in their own hand. That fact is irrefutable
@@cameronsmith5786 it was so hard for Brigham that he took 10 additional wives in the 3 month right after Joseph died.
JS married a woman in 1835. This was before the revelation announcement from 1842.
Brian’s point #3 is that the “experts” who aren’t really experts quote one another and those that believe Joseph go to original sources.
Whenever has “trust the experts” ever led people to bad conclusions? Oh wait…
Brian claims that there are very few denials of Joseph Smith.
Well, let’s see about that.
1835 - “General Assembly,” Messenger and Advocate 1 (August 1835) 2: 162. 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Section CI (101). 1844 Doctrine and Covenants Section 109.
“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.”
May 1837 - Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, Ohio), May 1837, page 511.
The May 1837 issue of the Messenger and Advocate contained a warning from the presidents of seventies meeting held 28 April 1837 that "we will have no fellowship whatever with any Elder belonging to the quorum of the Seventies who is guilty of polygamy or any offense of the kind."
29 November 1837 - Kirtland Elder’s Quorum Record, 1836-1841, edited by Lyndon W. Cook and Milton V. Backman, Jr. (Provo, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1985), 35.
“the charge that was preferred before the quorum against Elder Sollomon [sic] Freeman by William Perry for the crime of polygamy was brought forward. Elder Freeman plead not gilty of the charge [.] [T]estimony for the Complainent came forward (Dexter Stilman) and Stated the Elder Freeman had a wife in Tollan township Co. of Berksheir in Mass. And it was told him there that he (E. Freeman) Came a way [without his] wife Elder Harlow Redfield Stated that when he and Elder Stilman went to See Elder Freeman. Elder Freeman ackno[w]loged that he come away and left his wife as was testified Elder Freeman ackno[w]loged before the quorum that he had left his first wife came away with and Soon Commenced living with another woman he further Stated he did not know but his first wife was yet living he further Stated he would not go acros [sic] the room to obtain a bill from her Elder Freeman Manifest a Car[e]less indifferent spirit.”
Here is my thoughts has a convert to the church. I have been a member of the church for the past 21 years. Let's say Joseph did or did not practice polygamy, how does this information changes your point of view about the gospel of Jesus Christ? We need to remember that God only has imperfect people to work with to bring to pass his mission and purpose. Let's say Joseph Smith did practice polygamy and he did receive that revelation from God at that time and now we are no longer need to practice this. Tell me how does that change our relationship with God or the church? Let's say he didn't practice it and it is a lie, same question, how does it change anything? Let's say he did practice it but he lied about it being a revelation from God? My question is still, how does it change anything? Although, I do understand if one to believe that he would lie of this one thing then we must question everything else he have said even the restoration of the gospel. The point that I am trying to make is that we tend to put people/ human beings on such a high pedestal that we forget that they are not perfect beings. Joseph Smith was an inperfect man just like the rest of us who was called to do a very important work. In our minds we are thinking he couldn't possibly see God and Jesus Christ and still sin after that experience and that is where I think we get our misunderstanding. Now I'm not saying that he lied about anything but the point I am making is that he was used by God as a vessel, he is an important part of history for the reason that God used him for this mission and Joseph went through a lot because of it but to be clear the church is not Joseph Smith church. Our beliefs and faith should be on God and Jesus Christ. History is great for learning about those that lived before us and sacrifices so much for us to have what we do now but they should not be the why or how we have a relationship with God and Jesus Christ. The question we should ask ourselves is what kind of a relationship do I have with God and the savior? Are we keeping the commandments and honoring our covenants. How is the gospel of Jesus Christ impacting your life? To me, my testimony is. I have been on both side and being a member of the church and following the teachings of all of these imperfect man and women that God has used from the beginning of times has help me gain such a deep understanding and relationship with the savior. My thoughts on Joseph Smith is, I appreciate his sacrifice and his willingness to learn and seek truths. I appreciate knowing the fact that God will use us even the unlearned imperfect people such as Joseph to bring forth such an important work! Although it is good to know these History, we must not loose sight on what truly matter in the first place, the reason why we have these historical stories in the first place. Sorry about the rant but I hope the point I am trying to make is clear. Whatever beliefs you have about Joseph Smith, ask yourself how does that change your relationship with God or Jesus Christ? The gospel is a pathway of which help us gain knowledge and provides a way to our end goal which is to be with God again and to be more like him. Joseph Smith was one of those great people that God used to pave the way/path for us but let's not get it twisted, your faith should not be on him or any of the prophets.❤
Same! I knew Joseph was deeply flawed when I joined, same with the other prophets… luckily I only look to the savior for perfection, this problem comes from prophet worship. Even Jonas wanted God to kill all the people of Ninava, not to great… but still a prophet
Thank you.
@@kristenthompson962 Joseph was not deeply flawed. He also was NOT a polygamist. His enemies alleged he was a polygamist.
And it is alleged that God sometimes commands polygamy.
Both Joseph and God have been convicted without even a hearing.
Michelle has the better solid evidence that Joseph was innocent of those allegations.
I have studied every related scripture and the scriptures overall all my life.
Jacob 2-3 is NOT a loophole for polygamy.
There is record in scripture of any time God commanded polygamy.
Michelle has successfully shown 132 to be a fake. And the fact 132 has so many false doctrines, contrary to The Book of Mormon and other scripture--that it is case closed.
I don’t think it matters so much about Joseph. The reason why polygamy needs to be figured out is because it shows us who God is and what his daughters mean to him. Are his daughters valued like Jacob claims and he does not want them hurt because of polygamy or are his daughters a possessions for men and if they don’t harken they will be destroyed like it is claimed in section 132. Is polygamy the only way to have exaltation? Or is that false? I think each individual can take this to God for answers. Then with the added knowledge of how messed up the history is of Joseph and polygamy it becomes so clear who is behind polygamy. Satan is very cunning! Of course he is going to sow that seed into the restoration of the gospel. Why wouldn’t he?!? It’s genius and God isn’t surprised by it so we shouldn’t be either. That’s why we have repentance and it works for our church just the same as it works for us individually. It’s beautiful to see how this false tradition is getting plucked out of hearts one member at a time. Which I also think is the way it needs to happen. This truth of knowing polygamy is not of God is bringing forth such beautiful fruit of joy and peace. We don’t have to carry the weight of this false doctrine- which if we are honest none of us want to talk about. It’s the icky doctrine that we all wish would just go away. With the atonement of Jesus Christ it can! 🤍
@@tls9382 the question still remains. What if polygamy was instructed from God? Or what if it wasn't? Where does that put your faith? We get so bent out of shape when history make us feel uncomfortable but it our job to seek truth and listen to the spirit for our personal testimonies but it is not our job to try to bring the whole church down because we are uncomfortable on our own convictions. Sense we are so convinced that polygamy is so bad, what if God said to bring it back today and you had the personal witness that it was from God by the prophet now? Would you follow or what would be your reaction? Because we make the decision to be a member of the church, we agree to follow Jesus Christ where ever he goes and we must respect the authorities of the man that he put in place to help lead the church, they are not perfect and they will make mistakes and that is where your own personal prayers, reading scriptures, following prompting of the spirit comes in. The church job is not to spoon feed us only the things we love and set aside the things we don't.
Brigham Young also spilled the beans...
Schuyler Colfax's conversation with Brigham, June 17, 1865. The matter of polygamy was brought up by Brigham, himself, and in the course of his remarks he is reported to have declared that "... the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants declared for monogamy, but that polygamy was a later revelation commanded by God to him and a few others, and permitted and advised to the rest of the church." From Schuyler Colfax's Journal, quoted in The Western Galaxy, Vol. I, p. 247.
Brigham Young tells Senator Lyman Trumbull “polygamy, which you object to, was not originally a part of our system, but was adopted by us as a necessity, after we came here [Utah]” - (Brigham Young, interview with Senator Lyman Trumbull, July 10, 1869; published in Chicago Tribune July 26, 1869;)
That doesn't mean Joseph didn't start it. I think your negotiating with the text to find a conclusion that isn't explicit.
@@clayfullmerand yet, the evidence is mounting that Joseph didn't start it.
@@jacquelinesmith1509 AMEN!
@@clayfullmer Joseph is ALLEGED to have started it. An allegation is not proof. He has been tried in the kangaroo court of cultural opinions.
@@clayfullmer 😂 still he claimed it more than once, which is more times than Joseph ever did. It just highlights how pro-polygies disregard and omit things. How they prioritize much shakier accusations, and provable lies over simple plain statements like these.
I think we need to rename this video. No “proof” was provided. None at all.
Interested to see if Michelle stone does a reply to this video.
Honestly seems like a waste of time
She already has material covering this. She is doing what other professional historians have failed to do due to being tightly tied to the narrative. Well, I take that back - some. Those who have honestly looked at the quality and provenance of some of the important history have been removed from their positions or excommunicated.
Brian’s best “cherry”, what he leads with, his most rock solid “contemporaneous” evidence from Joseph Smith’s own hand writing, is his July 12, 1843 entry in his own journal about receiving a revelation in the presence of Hyrum and William Clayton. Then he admits that we don’t know what that revelation was. Brian did a bait and switch here. Joseph Smith’s journal entry was contemporaneous. William Clayton’s journal entry was not contemporaneous. Brian’s only evidence is William Clayton’s journal entry. The entire polygamy narrative rests, not on Joseph Smith’s writings and actions, but on a cabal of deceivers fabricated evidence after Joseph was martyred. William Clayton’s journal is a demonstrably proven fabrication after the fact and was not written contemporaneously. There are no witnesses confirming any of William Clayton’s writings. Talk about cherry picking! Why doesn’t Brian talk about all of the cherries that show that William Clayton’s was not of reputable character, and his journal was not contemporaneous but was rewriting whatever history Brigham wanted. Why doesn’t he mention the many other narratives in this web of lies that tell conflicting stories on when this revelation was received? Go and see for yourself the actual documents and research the history of William Clayton’s life and these journals that he unquestionably was creating for a fabricated history.
When you read about Joseph’s life and his writings and teachings and compare them to Brigham’s life, his writings and teachings. Well, even Brian disavows what the early church leaders said about polygamy as their record is a stomach turning abomination. That is the strongest evidence that polygamy was a deception of Satan. Go and read what these early church leaders openly taught.
We saints need to come to terms with our own history and recover from past errors. This great battle that Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, and others against polygamy was being waged at the time of D&C 124. Really study that section and come to terms with these words of the Lord.
46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.
47 And it shall come to pass that if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord.
48 For instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads, by your follies, and by all your abominations, which you practice before me, saith the Lord.
The church was literally brought to the brink of destruction and the Lord had to use the US government to stop his people from practicing this abomination. Read Jacob 2
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
I disagree with CWIC Media and Brian Hales. Therefore obviously I disagree with the LDS Church narrative on polygamy to this day. I am a great-great grandson of Brigham Young through Zina D Huntington. I grew up being taught the LDS narrative all through my life. It wasn't until my later years, around 2016 I read the 3 volumes of "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" by Pamela and Richard Price that started me to think for myself and I went to the Lord and asked Him who started Polygamy? Is Polygamy God's law or the Devil's law? Is Polygamy a true doctrine or a false doctrine? Guess what the Lord asked me to do? He said "Go to the scriptures starting in the Bible and then forward to the restoration and find out where it started, and that would be my [Gods answer] answer." So I did just that and found out that "Polygamy" started from the seed of Cain, a people who turned away from "God" eternal pattern of marriage [one man one wife], and it spread from their throughout the world. What the Prophet Joseph Smith was taught by the Lord was D&C 42, this section was called "embracing the Law of the Church" and guess what is says? Besides laying out the 10 commandments... It says: "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
19 And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.
20 Thou shalt not steal; and he that stealeth and will not repent shall be cast out.
21 Thou shalt not lie; he that lieth and will not repent shall be cast out.
22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.
23 And he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith, and shall not have the Spirit; and if he repents not he shall be cast out.
24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 42:18 - 24)
What Brian Hales teaches and what the LDS Church teaches today along with CWIC Media teachings on this subject are "false doctrines" when it comes to who started polygamy in the LDS Church and when they insist that Joseph Smith lived, practiced and received a revelation D&C 132, they are "Lying," see verse 21 of D&C 42 above and promoting the lie. Polygamy has NEVER, past, present or future been a law or commandment from God to mankind. If you want to read my whole experience, click on my picture icon. By the way I am STILL MORMON [LDS] enjoy the temple experience and fellowship with the saints. I have written 7 letters to the 15 in Salt Lake City headquarters, sharing my research and testimony that the Prophet Joseph Smith was true and faithful to Emma and never taught or practiced polygamy but fought it his whole life!
The thing is, he church itself never taught it. Nor did Joseph Smith
So I agree with you!
Wrong it stsrted with Abraham
@@jasonandersen5975 The Lord needs honest and righteous people everywhere to be bold and speak the truth without fear! That is what I do. Part of the "spirit of Elijah" is to seek out my ancestors and call them to repentance until our "hearts" become one in Christ.
For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there-and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?
27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 38:26 - 27)!
@@kencard6657 mmm, OK. What does that have to do with my comment? (I realized my previous comment was addressed to someone else; I meant that to be a response to your original comment. I have corrected that. )
I don't trust William Clayton over Joseph and Hyrum and Emma.
So, William Clayton just made it up and Brigham Young was a false prophet??
@christhompson2034 why? You didn't live with them or know them personally. All you know is what other people tell you to believe about them.
@@isaiah-4310 A lot of allegations and gossip; Michelle and the scriptures exonerate Joseph and God of polygamy and polygamy teachings.
That is called evidence.
@@DannyAGraythe same can be said about those that support polygamy
Point #5 we have to weigh out the evidences presented before us.
Option #1 is believe Brian and his VERY late resources where people had motive to lie about Joseph being a polygamist and use all of Joseph’s enemy’s rumors and claims.
Or
Option #2 is to believe Joseph’s claims from his own mouth, believe Emma and JSIII who lived in all the houses where he would have known if there were extra wives and he said there weren’t, and Hyrum who was co-prophet of the church with Joseph and he clearly in VERY harsh words condemned polygamy including the fact that he would call the devil his brother over a polygamist. If his brother was a polygamist he would never had said that. There’s also the lack of any kind of physical evidence like babies, letters to wives, dates of marriages written down (why were the wives sealed to Joseph AFTER his death???? 🙄), letters to wives, presents to wives, etc. we also have no evidence of other women claiming to be Joseph’s wife going to the church for money other than Emma, no one going after his assets of grieving as a wife with Emma when Joseph died. So many more things.
Do your own work and research. It’s extremely clear that option #2 has the stronger evidence and #1 is weak as wet toilet paper.
@@RBD582 Right on!
@@RBD582 perfect response. The evidence is really bad in this video. Michelle Stone lays out much more credible evidence.
AMEN! I have researched hundreds of hours. I did not take this journey lightly.
And in scripture, God ONLY CONDEMNS and or SUFFERS because of polygamy, he NEVER COMMANDED IT! There is not Jacob 2:30 cherry pick verse loophole!
@@BridgeBuilder-x4cAnd yet so many individuals lying in their journals about their experiences and witnesses? Rank and file members doing this not because of their actual experiences but to perpetuate a lie? The sheer number of them cannot be minimized.
And then to piggyback on that and to throw out the temple aspect of it and then to another game gigantic conspiracy about BY and others killing JS just sounds ridiculous.
The collective historical record of the saints does not support the no polygamy by JS theory. The majority of saints were sincere, God fearing people. Pulling off so many people recording things in their personal journals that wouldn't even be seen til after they die would be a monumental feat.
Putting all the leaders aside how could so many people record things that were not true? It doesn't make sense.
It’s more nuanced than that. Joseph Smith III doubted his own mother’s testimony after visiting with his father’s other wives.
Brian has no trouble saying that Joseph Smith told “bold faced lies”, so why is he surprised that the polygamy deniers think William Clayton told “bold faced lies”? Isn’t it obviously that someone is telling lies in this controversy? I’m shocked people like Brian think Joseph was a **consistent** liar on the topic of polygamy.
Brian Hales does not suggest that Joseph told "bold faced lies." He has repeated that Joseph's statements were "carefully worded denials," allowing for ambiguity about what he was actually saying.
Again, you are not being truthful about the fact that you have left the Church and followed Phil Davis for a time.
Joseph didn’t lie. He condemned spiritual wifery.
@@мельник754Joseph's denials were not "carefully worded". He was very direct.
You are correct Greg falsely accusing someone is not okay. And in this case doing so is speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, the man who you believe is the prophet of the restoration, the man who gave you the BOM and the church you believe in. Accusations he refuted throughout his life and that led to his death. I would say that is a pretty big deal and highly important thing to be on the right side of. The evidence exonerates Joseph from the false accusations and those who ignore and deny those facts will have to answer for it.
I would add, polygamy is a blasphemous teaching against the love and character of God.
Just be honest. You can't stomach plural marriage and therefore will reject ANY and all evidence pointing to Joseph practicing it.
@@justinlabar7352you're not doing this? Check out 132 Problems podcast. The evidence on the other side is MUCH more compelling. Will you ignore and reject that?
Polygamy is how we got the covenant House of Israel. If they were evil and polygamy an abomination God would have said so about them. Instead of giving us scripture about why and when He calls people to live it.
@@LdsTiktokPreservation God did not give us scripture about why and when He calls people to live it.
God calls many wives and concubines a crime, whoredom, and abomination.
Why did they wait so long after reaching the safety of Utah to reveal D&C 132? And why did Emma state the first time she heard of any such revelation was when it was published in the SEER in 1853? And it is a tragic coincidence that Mary Fielding Smith, Hyrum's widow, was sick and unable to attend the conference when D&C 132 was revealed and never recovered dying shortly thereafter. She was the only person in Utah that could have confirmed or denied if Joseph and Hyrum were really involved in polygamy.
Mary Fielding ended up becoming one of Heber Kimball's plural wives. She went west with Brigham. She is actually potential evidence to the contrary of what you're trying to say. 🤷♂️
@@justinlabar7352 She was never a plural wife to Brigham. She was allegedly married to Heber prior to making the trek west. The strange thing about that is one would think if she was married to such an important man as Heber she would have been taken better care of and treated better than she was on that trek but according to stories we have of it, she was treated horribly and was lucky to have made it. She was under Heber's care at the time of her death. Married to Heber and going west doesn't make her evidence to the contrary of what I am saying whatsoever. The fact that she was the only reliable living person in Utah who could have confirmed or denied Joseph and Hyrum's involvement and if D&C 132 came from them but was not in attendance at the conference and died shortly after is a strange, tragic coincidence. Almost as strange as Samuel Smith dying, a month after his brothers were killed, while being given a white powder daily.
@@nostoppingit7243 You're correct. Some were sealed to Brigham. Some to Heber. It was Heber she was sealed to. Which, of course, doesn't change the point. 😉
Leonard Soby lied about how the affidavit came about so how can be trust that he didn't lie in the affidavit itself? He also leaves out that Soby was disfellowshipped. He also doesn't explain why if Soby was against polygamy that he stayed with the church for almost 18 months after the alleged revelation was read to him, until he was finally disfellowshipped.
You seem like an honest guy. If you made a list of all of Brian's sources that he mentioned along with all of Michelle's sources and studied them all out for yourself, you would agree with Michelle. Brian speaks like his conclusions, even about specific documents and situations, are obvious and conclusive, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Not only do they have more holes than Swiss cheese, it is really hard in several instances to not think Brian is intentionally deceptive.
I don’t think he’s deceptive but he wants to believe it because he’s been married to 3 women. Honestly, maybe it will work out for all of them if that’s what they all want, but I can’t get on board with this celestial law and polygamy argument. I know polygamy is not required for exaltation
@@ED-wired If polygamy is not required for exaltation, then what's the problem?
@@godsoffspring4195great question-my problem is that so many people believe it is. The primary president in my ward said she was going to stop homeschooling her kids in math and start teaching them they may have a new mom soon. MANY people in the church believe polygamy is a requirement for the Savior to return and that it is celestial law. This thinking affects culture as well. There is a man in my ward who is married to a woman who was sealed to her first husband, but he died. He cannot be sealed to her in this life because she is already sealed. My FIL actually told my husband’s mom he would not marry her unless she broke her temple dealing with her dead husband. There are so many widows in the church single men will not even date because they have been sealed before. And don’t get me started on all the fundamentalist groups still practicing because they believe in some of the things Brigham Young said.
@@ED-wired This is the perfect example!! If the Church was still living the law of marriage that Joseph Smith DID teach , your friend would be at liberty to marry again without worry. Joseph Smith stated that the Marriage Doctrine of the Church is one man and one woman. If either of them die the other was at liberty to marry again. See (1835) Doctrine and Covenants section 101 and (1844) Doctrine and Covenants section 109. He was very very clear on the doctrine and it is what he taught and lived and believed so much so that he fought polygamists of his day and strongly disciplined those who were caught teaching, preaching or practicing or accusing him of practicing the 'doctrine' of plurality of wives. He stated it in publications, scriptures, speeches and to his friends and trusted church leaders. Those he did NOT trust were some of them who were pretending to be close to him.
@@littleredhen3218right? People cherry pick the fruits they want to believe about polygamy. It’s all rotten to me
So he practiced polygamy. SO WHAT?? This church is not based around Joseph Smith, it’s based around Jesus the Christ, the savior of all the world. Go read the Book of Mormon to gain a testimony, not Joseph smith’s life story. Good grief. These arguments are getting old. The world practices “polygamy” nowadays, but not married! They call it polyamory. So which is better, to have more than one lover, and be married to neither of them, or to have more than one lover, and to marry them? Get some perspective, haters. Go read the Book of Mormon and learn about Jesus Christ.
The problem is that people today, in your ward, think it is a law of the celestial kingdom and we will need to practice it again.
This is totally false thinking. President a Hinckley said it is behind us and Elder Cook said nobody in the general councils of the church think we will be practicing it again.
The other problem is members don’t really know the history. I can agree with Bro Hales on that. The history is so sketch around Joseph Smith practicing it. You can listen to either side present arguments but unless you go read the documents yourself and ask God yourself I don’t think anyone really has the full story.
@@ED-wiredHonestly! Even if it was a Celestial practice it doesn't matter. If you desire and want to be Celestial you will have a willingness and a desire to give your will to God. I am not worried about the possibility of plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom. I am more worried about living and obeying now so that I can be with my family forever. Not just with my earthly family, but to live with God the Father in his family.
Everyone gets so myopic in their vision of what things will be like. Many think their narrow self-centered view is how things should be. The truth is we have no clue what eternity will be like. We also have a tendency to judge the past based on our own bias and world view. We struggle to allow our will to be swallowed up in God's will. We want it our way.
We want life to be easy. We don't think life is fair. We want God to fix everything and make it work for us. We all struggle with selfishness.
I totally agree with you. It is more important to have a relationship with Christ and a testimony of the Book of Mormon than to worry about Plural Marriage.
You need a testimony of Joseph Smith the prophet because that's where the book of Mormon came from. Otherwise you can't really reason your way out of being Protestant. I believe there will be far more jarring things than polygamy in the world to come for those who focus on their own selfishness.
@@ED-wired I personally know people who use D&C as a way to practice polygamy in secret while trying to be active members of the church. They justify this by saying Joseph practiced in secret so why can't we?
I don’t care about this issue. It does not shake my faith. Do I believe that Joseph Smith saw AGP’s the Father and His Son Jesus Christ? Yes. Do I believe that Joseph was given the keys of the Priesthood and every subsequent prophet following had these keys given during his leadership? Yes. Then, this subject matter is void for me. To say the least that I would not be here on this earth had polygamy not been in force at that time. LOL My 3rd GG had several wives. I personally believe I come from very strong, faith believing stock. I’m excited to one day meet my grandparents again and say thank you for keeping the faith 🙏🏻
It’s not a question of shaking your faith, it’s a question of the means of exaltation according to the supposed revelation. It claims to be Doctrine, so it cannot be ignored.
“The principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines”
@@DerekPayne1791 still don’t care
You obviously care about this issue or you wouldn’t listen to this or comment on it. The truth is very important especially when we still teach and practice polygamy in the church. Men can still be sealed to many wives where women whose husbands pass away cannot be sealed to any other. The reason why this is so important is because God is not the author of confusion nor can he lie. This issue will continue to march forward because of truth. When we repent of our past mistakes as a church and shed some terrible cultural beliefs such as the infallibility of our leaders (We teach that God will take their lives), and also it is undeniable that Brigham’s faulty view on women and polygamy was brought into our temple endowment. Also, please understand what a trial of faith this is when members and investigators discover that they have been deceived about our history. Brian is a deceiver and that does not strengthen faith.
Boy Greg, Things really get heated on this topic. I personally think it is more valuable for all of us to gain a testimony of Christ and His Doctrine. READ, STUDY, FAST, PRAY, PARTAKE OF THE SACRAMENT, WORSHIP IN HIS HOUSE, SEEK HIS GUIDANCE FOR OUR LIVES, SEEK TO KNOW HIM AND HIS WILL, AND SEEK THE COMPANIONSHIP OF THE HOLY GHOST. If we choose to study the history of the church we should understand that we do it with our personal bias and judgement. I honestly think we should go to the Lord and seek His help to better understand what he would have us learn. I'm not saying that we shouldn't study the history, but I am saying that we need to understand that we have a limited view and understanding. I will personally accept His wisdom in all things over my own. If we seriously study the scriptures we can see that from the time of Adam and Eve we have been an imperfect and fallible people. God has used imperfect people through all generations of time to accomplish His work. Our wisdom and understand are limited by our own knowledge, understanding, and weaknesses. God is all wise and will judge every man, woman, and child with exactness and mercy. I learned at a young age to judge the actions of others and still love the person. I think a lot about the beam and mote in the scriptures. I also think we see through a dark lens with limited knowledge and understanding. I hope and pray we as members can come to understand that our ways are not God's ways.
AMEN!
I used to be very embarrassed/ashamed/terrified of polygamy. But then I just ask God to show me everything there is to know about section 132. I was cured of everything. I am not afraid or ashamed of this law. I know it comes from God and it is divine. No one can make me feel ashamed of this law.
All these men saying what’s fine for women. My point is God does not view women as so disposable.
Maybe you don’t have to be ashamed of 132 because maybe it’s not ALL divine
@@ED-wired No, all of it is divine and of God. The only reason why anyone would be ashamed and embarrassed of plural marriage is because they are moral cowards like I used to be.
@@MrRugbyrugbyrugby so why do you think that God would confirm 132 as from God to you, but to others that pray about it they get confirmation from God that it is not all from Him?
@@RonkerRoom the scriptures say that there are many false spirits in this world giving false revelations to the children of men, deceiving them into thinking that they are the ones with the truth and not the prophets and apostles. The test to know if the revelation or impression you have received is of God or of the devil is that the Holy Ghost will never give you a revelation that contradicts what the first presidency had declared to be doctrine. If your spiritual impression are in line with what the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve say to be true then you know it is truth. If at anytime you have a spiritual impression come over you that is in opposition to the words spoken by the living prophets you know that it was not the Holy Ghost but it was the Devil.
The living prophets unanimously declare that section 132 is gods truth. Because of that we know it to be true and anyone who comes out in opposition to that statement, according to the scriptures, is a false prophet. Michelle Stone fits that description I think perfectly.
I have not found anywhere in the scriptures where God tells men to take another wife as in a commandment , only where he says its an abomination. As far as i have seen it was a tradition , some were given as gifts by other rulers. Implied does not mean divine command.
Many plain and precious doctrines have been removed from the Bible.
@@returnedfrompanama is polygamy one of those plain and precious truths?
@@stoffeyfam5012 According to Brigham Young, yes.
That's because you ignore the living oracles while depending on your own (mis)interpretation of scripture. You're an LDS Protestant.
@@jaredshipp9207 More like LDS apostate.
Also, no one wants to talk about the JST translations in the Old Testament that talk about the wives of David and Solomon. Joseph Smith, in his corrections of those stories, makes it very clear that God does not approve of polygamy. And then you also have the entire Book of Mormon narrative, which is very clear that God is against polygamy. So how do you justify this? These people who are looking into this issue are not kooks, they are intelligent, faithful people who want to know. Also, it is very hard to determine actual facts when looking at history. We have to remember that Joseph and Hyrum were murdered. Emma did not want to go with the main body of the church. No one is really ever going to know the reasons behind these.
@@risefromthedust I have read the JST corrections specifically looking for changes that would denounce polygamy because of "Still Mormons" recent video. The JST does not denounce polygamy.
As for Jacob 2, I believe the more common interpretation holds up especially when you consider that about 15 people in the Bible had plural wives and most were considered righteous. Israel(Jacob) practiced polygamy. I don't think we can claim that this was just a vestige of Lamech's Sin as some claim it was for Abraham. We know Lamech was not righteous but I would point out that polygamy was never specifically cited as one of his sins. How about Gideon? There is even evidence that Moses also had plural wives.
@@reinvented4209Exactly. It's like the guy above you actually hasn't read the JST of those verses but simply saw someone else make that claim and he repeated it here.
@@reinvented4209 Jacob 2-3 says God "suffered" polygamy in the old world and jerusalem. Why because it breaks the hearts of women and the children lose confidence in their fathers.
Read Jacob 2-3 more carefully. There is no loophole in 2;30
And
The Lord declares polygamy to be the GROSSER CRIME
And and abomination and a whoredom--I call that also condemnation
And, Jacob's people knew better than to try to justify polygamy on Abraham and Jacob
132 has been shown to be a forgery, and as evidence it is filled with false doctrines, including the heavenly caste system for women of wives and concubines. NO WOMAN or GIRL, should be subjected to this sickening language in the abomination of a fake scripture.
Ill have to wait on the Lord to change the Church
But in the meantime, I refuse to teach it and I will teach my children, my stewardship that monagamy is always Gods law.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c I disagree with your interpretation.
First of all there is no mention of Abraham and Jacob's plural wives as an abomination. Only David and Solomon who did indeed have plural wives that were NOT given to them.
That was the abomination.
Abraham and Jacob did nothing that wasn't commanded of them.
I think you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to say that Jacob 2:30 is not speaking about plural wives. Sorry I have read it over and over and can't accept anything else.
And just another nitpick ...
I assume you are just trying to summarize Jacob 2 according to your understanding. However, Jacob 2 does not say that God "suffered" Polygamy in the old world. It says that God will not "Suffer" that the Nephites shall do like unto them of old.
The meaning is different.
I have read very carefully and I believe the totality of Scripture supports D&C 132. Yes Jacobs words can be confusing but it is not the only place in the scriptures that can appear contradictory.
I believe the contradiction can be explained by understanding that David and Solomon did commit abominations and Jacob was speaking in an extremely harsh manor trying to get his people to repent of the same abominations.
Unauthorized polygamy.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4cThere's a lot of ambiguity in Jacob 2. Yes, I know what it says. And what Chapter 1 and 3 say. In Chapter 2 Jacob is speaking in a way that is aiming for the men to catch his drift while stopping short of having to say everything outright when women and children were present. Jacob is mainly rebuking them for fornication and saying that since they can't keep from fornication (partly because of their pride and riches) then the commandment to Father Lehi to have only one wife for the time being should still be observed. (Yes, I know there's more to it than that.)
Brian employs the same tactic used by the author of The CES letter (it's called gish gallop) He presents a mountain of so-called evidence, and then claims that he is correct because of the sheer volume of information he presents. He never provides proper proof or context and he never answers direct questions. Rather than refuting specific claims made by the monogamy advocates, he accuses them of apostasy. I also have a really hard time believing that Brian just "made a mistake" when he said Joseph Smith III hadn't included a question to his mother about polygamy on his notes. Either he has a habit of subconsciously filtering out information that doesn't align with his preconceived views, or he lied. Either way, he can't be trusted to be objective on this subject. Also, the sources he unquestioningly cites make me sick. Most of them were enemies to Joseph Smith. Joseph was told his name would be had for good and evil throughout the world. Is it any wonder that Brian can find so many instances of people speaking evil of Joseph? D&C 122:3.. "Thy people shall not be turned away by the testimony of traitors"
Savage!
When someone does something and then insist in public that they didn't do it then condemned others that did it does that make them a liar?
caREfUllY wORdeD DEniAl
YES IT DOES! That is the entire point of this whole argument. Many have come to the knowledge that Joseph Actually DID NOT live polygamy. He DID insist publically through courts and meetings and personal visits with trusted friends that he DID NOT do it. He DID condemn others who did. This is why WE believe Joseph Smith. He was NOT a liar. He didn't live polygamy. He said he didn't do it and he condemned the practice and the people who did. He was not a liar.
It makes someone a liar, which one do you want to believe?
@@jondaich3582 I believe Joseph, Hyrum and Emma and God who ALL, every time condemned and never commanded or condoned polygamy
I think it's really important to understand the effects on both men and women in a polygamous marriage, which are not positive. I know God's plan is monogamous because that's what brings true joy when a man and woman cleave to each other. Women and children are harmed in any other relationship type. AND it is a hardship on men to provide for multiple families and to not be around for their wives and children. It is like a divorce situation. See ya next week Dad! No.. God's plan is that the woman and her children are taken care of by a man and not to have her heart ripped apart for eternity. I am serious about this. Jacob was right about the abomination it is.
There are three books written after 45 years of research by the Prices with loads of information about how Joseph fought polygamy. It makes a lot of sense.
I would like to list the effects of polygamy: sexually transmitted disease, poverty, heartbreak, lonely women, children not raised by a father, more abusive, no cleaving, less children per woman, deprivation of sexual relationships between spouses, women being less than women (no equality in the relationship).
Effects of one man one woman: equal relationship, hearts cleaving to each other, children have both Father and Mother, sexual disease doesn't spread or happen, hearts are not broken when true and faithful to the covenant, a home built together, the fruits of joy and love!! God wants this for all of his children!!
He allowed those who came from the cochranites to practice what they thought was right so the wrong Fork in the road could more quickly be found out. The church does not approve of such relationships for a reason. ❤️
Absolutely. By the fruits ye shall know them. Polygamy is rotten to the core
Another aspect of this whole thing is the hypocrisy of saying that it’s unfaithful to say things that go against the church narrative (which Brian created so he’s really just saying no one should go against him) but everyone is ok with how Brigham threw Emma and Joseph’s whole family- his kids, his mother, under the bus. Brigham treated her extremely poorly, said she was responsible for his death, that she was the wickedest woman on earth, etc. But she wasn’t a church leader so it’s ok?!? She had to have been one of the most righteous women on earth or she wouldn’t have been chosen by god to do all she did alongside Joseph. We will answer to Joseph and god for how we have treated her. When the BofM talks about widows being treated badly I always think of her. I’ve heard some say that because she didn’t hold keys she’s not as credible, that’s simply not true. Someone who holds keys is just as human as the next person. They have the capacity to do good just like anyone in their calling but it’s not a rule that they always have been the most righteous.
Even now, decades later, I find myself wondering if the contaminated scalpel that landed in my arm was any more toxic than the venomous contention that infects our civic dialogue and too many personal relationships today. Civility and decency seem to have disappeared during this era of polarization and passionate disagreements. President Nelson April 2023.
Yes. How much simpler if we all just believe Christ and Joseph/Hyrum and Emma
“It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God.”-Joseph Smith
Exactly! Section 132 is entirely incompatible with Lectures on Faith (luckily is was torn from the scriptures), and every other book in the LDS Canon
“I can’t believe in 2024 I’m defending polygamy”.. Well, I can’t believe in 2024 we are watching polygamy apologists, who claim to be active believing members in good faith, use the same contemporary sources that Joseph’s enemies used to accuse him (which he continually denied in public and private until his dying breath) to now “prove” that he practiced polygamy. It’s absurd that this guy then claims polygamy deniers (aka people who believe Joseph Smith was an honest man) are the ones flirting with apostasy. Unbelievable.
@@beautheone hmmm… interesting point made… I’d like to hear this addressed by the host - Greg.
@@beautheone he will be held accountable as we all will be, Praise to the Man
Was the story about the angel with the sword true? I think Jeremy Hoop also presents a very good case. 🤷♀️
Just me, but I was told about that story in seminary many years ago, but since then I have read that it was not true. Who knows anything anymore???
I grew up with that story, too and since have wondered if it is true.
@@nancylowe2692 NO
@@lukeslc-xd8ds It has been debunked
Jeremy has a great case, no angel with a sword. Ever play the game gossip?
What does DNA say about Joseph Smith's descendants? There don't seem to be very many links. Blood tells.
The DNA argument isn't a good one because:
1. Only 7 possible offspring have been looked at (and ruled out) but they weren't even the best possible choices for who could have been his offspring
2. They've never looked at possible children that were more likely candidates
3. Females are notoriously difficult to test, so daughters likely can't be identified due to how DNA testing is currently done. As of right now, only 1 female has been ruled out and it cost so much money to look into that one female that others have never been tested. So if you take out 50% of the possibilities right off the bat due to testing limitations then you've got a pretty poor argument that he never had children with other women.
4. Three of the possible offspring of Joseph's died without having children of their own and their graves are unknown so they will never be able to be tested. All it would take is for one of those children to have actually been Joseph's and the entire polygamy-denial movement would unravel in a moment.
@@cameronsmith5786 so what you’re saying is that there is zero proof of polygamous offspring from Joseph yet we have scores of “matches” for the apostles during that time…..hmmmmm
@@bobbyshiffler80 Jospeh Smith only lived polygamy for three years before he was murdered. No man in Nauvoo was having offspring with their polygamous wives because it was too dangerous. Catherine Phillips Smith was a plural wife of Hyrum Smith and she testified that she had to move to St Louis because of the prejudice against plural marriage in Nauvoo was great that it made it dangerous and she had to conceal her identity as one of Hyrum’s wives and leave Nauvoo. Hyrum like Joseph Smith died before they could live polygamy safely in the Rocky Mountains like the rest of the Apostles.
@@cameronsmith5786 Wrong. They DID look at the most likely candidates. Go back to your source and check it again and weigh it against the actual evidence.
@@cameronsmith5786 According to the records Brigham You was having offspring before Joseph was killed. So were others of Joseph's 'frenemies'
I guess it’s interesting that all of us born into or converted to the church are told the same narrative about polygamy but so many, after pondering and searching come to a different conclusion and are STILL faithful.
His opening remarks are "I think" and then a rapsheet of conjecture and heresay built upon it in the color of "research".
No depth or motive discovery as to the characters of said research though.
Polygamy is a house built on quicksand. It does not have any scriptural foundation, nor are the allegations against Joseph Smith credible.
If polygamy was for the purpose of raising up seed, can you explain why Brigham only fathered about as many children as he had wives, and those children by only a small handful of the wives? Wouldn’t way more children be born if those women had married monogamously? I know a single woman who had 15 children with one husband, polygamy is not needed to generate lots of kids. And for the kids to have an actually present father, and the wives to feel like equal partners, polygamy destroys families.
To Brian’s point #1 there are issues with the idea that Emma burned the copy that Clayton wrote down (when he never was a scribe for any other revelation and was only a financial clerk for Joseph for a few months before he was removed because of dishonesty) because Kingsbury had nothing to copy since it was burned.
Also, Brian says it’s a problem that those that believe Joseph say that these people were lying. You have to choose either Joseph and those close to him to be liars, or the weaker and late evidences of others who were not close to Joseph being liars. Can you blame us for believing Joseph?
Another point is Brian says that other polygamist’s relationships were hidden at the time as well and that is 100% false. We can read clearly about Brigham and Heber’s polygamy and they were the ring leaders that infiltrated the church with it.
Yup
AMEN
All it takes is some slight digging on Brian’s “sources” and it doesn’t take long to find out that Joseph never taught it and Brigham’s crew were looking to exploit the women of the church
There is cherry picking coming from your side of the argument as well. The Lord says in Jacob 2:24-26 that David and Solomon having many wives and concubines was abominable. That he led the Nephite people out of Jerusalem to raise up a righteous branch and that he will not suffer that the Nephite people shall do like unto them of old. In other words, he will not suffer the practice of polygamy among the Nephite people. If the Book of Mormon is the most correct book and if God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then why is polygamy bad for the people in Jerusalem and bad for the Nephites, but ok for the Latter-Day Saints? Could this be a logical error on your part? Also, you agree that polygamy is hard and mean to women, but that is no reason why God wouldn't command it. You describe this as an emotional argument. Yet you completely disregard Jacob 2:31-33; 35 where the Lord has compassion for these women. He has heard the mourning of his daughters in the land of Jerusalem, and the cries of the fair daughters of the Nephite people. He will curse and destroy those who lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness. In Jacob 3:5-6 he commends the Lamanites for not practicing polygamy. So was God lying in Jacob, or is he lying in D&C 132? Joseph was aware of God' feelings regarding polygamy in Jacob. Would Joseph just accept God changing his mind without questioning it? Without some internal or spiritual struggle? Is there any evidence to indicate that this is the case? Just saying.
Thanks to you and Brian Hales for the QR code. Most of us don't have the research resources he has, but still want to explore this subject.
I recommend also Karen Hyatt: Woe unto you scribes: The hidden history of polygamy" podcast. She has put together a fabulous, easy to follow rebuttal to Brian's claims.
Brian's best evidence is a house built on quicksand. He took some big leaps of woke illogic. But now the dialogue can progress.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c Like Mr. Hales’ references, I’ll check Ms. Hyatt’s against other sources for veracity. With all internet discussions, “Trust, but verify” applies.
@@Sagart999 Great
"I don't think Joseph would have done that, it's really bad for women" has nothing to do with God moving upon people to search for the truth and exonerate an innocent man from false accusations that led to his death. It is the flimsy evidence that you based your narrative on that is the problem. Evidence that you, Brian, as well as actual historians, have said was "greatly lacking", "flimsy", "problematic" or "ambiguous"
This marks a major change in tone for Brian. He's been marching with the flag "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a dum dum rehashing old RLDS lies and conspiracies and anyone who doesn't get on board is in defiance of the brethren and their membership should be at stake." Now he's saying things like "They have some great points." Did he actually attempt to respond to the actual claims made about source documents from the "Polygamy deniers" and realize his story has holes? Did he get a message from his authorities to soften his stance promoting a spiritual firing squad for his detractors? Does he see that in time he is going to have to backpeddle many of his stances and he's wanting to make room for that? Has his arrogance and weak sources for his conclusions been pointed out too many times and he was forced to eat some humble pie? Just wondering.
Yes, this is correct.
Maybe he listened to general conference to try and avoid contention.
I heartily disagree with Brian. And I have seen an astonishing amount of derision without evidence coming from his camp. If we defending Joseph and the Lord resort to that, it won't be so clear we are on the Lord's errand...
First of all…Brian Hales?!? Really?!?
In the textbook for Logical Fallacies and How to Recognize Them, next to the section on “Appeal to Authority”, there’s a picture of Brian. Whenever he’s cornered by evidence a layperson uncovered, he’s like, “Well…no REPUTABLE historians agree with that…”
Secondly, Brian gives the example of the SUPPOSED link between Joseph vaguely mentioning a revelation and William Clayton saying it was about instituting polygamy. He then says that his opponents have to give some example of what other revelation Joseph DID give.
No. No we don’t. HE’S the one making the claim, the onus is on him.
Thirdly, dripping with self-righteousness, he says that he doesn’t like to use monikers like “polygamy deniers”…and then proceeds to say it over and over again.
We aren’t polygamy deniers. We’re Joseph, Hyrum and Emma defenders.
Lastly, when Brigham said in his journal that he “spent the evening revising church history”, then EVERYTHING becomes suspect.
Yup!
AMEN, though, it is offensive how Brian talks, I will extend grace and not take offense:) Brian, some say when you are in a hole, quit digging. It is getting more apparent polygamy house is built on quicksand. Not less. The more you explain.
What page is that picture of Brian H in that textbook you referenced? I would like to fact check that. 😂
@@tgray747 I believe it’s on page 132. The other odd thing about that page is how it reads unlike ANY other page in the book…long and verbose legal-ese. It has so many run-on sentences and unnecessary verbiage, it makes it almost unreadable, regardless of content.
@@brijsmi072 And like other things discussed here, not actually a real thing. But thanks for the entertainment! Fiction can be very entertaining. 😅
As a Smith and descendant of Hyrum through the patriarchal line, I never researched the sources of what I was taught about polygamy and our family history but I will try to explain what I remember of it here.
I was taught that the initial revelation or restoration of plural marriage came as Joseph asked the Lord about Hebrew practice of taking a brother's widow to wife and seemingly "allowed" biblical plural marriage in general. The resulting revelation was unsettling to both Joseph and Hyrum because it revealed plural marriage to be a sound doctrine revealed and practiced in every dispensation, not as eternal principle of exaltation but as a tool used by the Lord when the need or occasion arises. My personal opinion is that Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage to a degree because he was resistant to its restoration. I think Hyrum saw how quickly this could take on another form and be abused and so he pushed back on it generally being practiced in the church. Even Hyrum's first born son John was resistant to practicing it. John went west with BY and was ordained the Patriarch of the Church in 1955. He may have been the only prophet seer and revelator in Utah that refused take a second wife. After constant pressure from BY he did take a second wife. He seemed ashamed of this and even hid her existence from his RLDS family which he still was in communication with. His wiki page has some interesting details about this. Anyways, the gist of what my family taught is that our family has always felt that plural marriage was given more import in the gospel than what was intended by the Lord but that its practice in the early restored church WAS the will of the Lord.
@@MoietyVR So says 132 and the official narrative of the LDS Church as of right now. Great memorization of the "facts".
@littleredhen3218 wut?
Brian asserts a lot of things as fact without the context while simultaneously accusing others of doing that very thing. If he were interested in helping clarify things, he would go through each issue in careful detail and layout the evidence both for and against his narrative without just continually asserting his own narrative and conclusions. He's muddying the waters, at best. Very deceptive and disingenuous. His narrative and assertions are riddled with holes. He invokes implicitly many false assumptions. Sad that so few are trained enough to spot it.
My eyes have been opened but not by Brian. Michelle really helped me come to the truth regarding polygamy. Since your video with her I have really deep dived into the matter. I can say with conviction that Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma were clear on the matter and opposed its teaching to the end. Polygamy was and is an abomination and they had no part in it. God be thanked for the Prophet Joseph Smith and his testimony of Jesus Christ. Greg, I’m with you on so many topics. Open your heart. Joseph is vindicated on the matter.
Ok so my ancestors’ journals which say Joseph preached polygamy and were written when he was still alive, are all wrong by your logic? Sorry, I can’t agree with the polygamy denial movement-I have more faith in my ancestors and their testimonies than that.
Joseph does not have to be vindicated on the subject of plural marriage. Honestly you can believe whatever you want, but it brings up so many more questions and problems. If you listen to Michelle you have to come to the conviction that the church is not true. You can't sit on the fence believing that Brigham Young and other Prophets are under condemnation and believe in PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY AND THE TEMPLE! The turn around and want your temple blessings when Brigham Young became the prophet. There are too many holes in Michelle's position. Don't get me wrong, I love and care about all my brothers and sisters in and out of the church.
Yeah, I so believe you.
@@CwicShowGreg, there are many, many in that same boat. We love your content, but on this one subject Joseph, Hyrum, Emma and the LDS Canon are clear that polygamy is an abomination
@@CwicShowOh… okay.
Brother Joseph practiced plural marriage as he was directed by the Almighty.
Brother Joseph was a prophet of God.
The Book of Mormon is true.
The Church is Christ’s Kingdom on the earth.
Whew, so many truths and so easy to understand!
My guess you don’t even know who the God Almighty is, She would never condone her sons hurting Her daughters.
God Almighty is not the Father
You are making declarations of faith, not evidentiary claims which is what this whole issue is about.
@@DerekPayne1791look wack job . Go some where else to spread your lies.
Amen!
The Book of Mormon AND section 132 can't both be true. They contradict each other in doctrine and scripturally. The Book of Mormon has receipts and scriptural witnesses. Section 132 as presented has none.
Greg, I noticed that you said you found Jacob 2 to be ambiguous. I’m sure you’re familiar with both interpretations, do you lean to one being the correct reading of Jacob 2:30?
I lean toward many men in Jacob's community living polygamy like they were doing in Jerusalem at the time of Lehi. With v30, I lean toward an exception where it is sanctioned for a period of time.
@@CwicShow I think the alternate explanation for this verse often gets over complicated. Verse 30 seems to simply be reaffirming verse 29. That’s why it starts with the word For, it’s a continuous thought.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 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.
For God to raise a righteous branch, he will provide us with commandments. If he doesn’t, we will follow the bad examples of those before us. Verses 31-35 explain the why behind it.
One of my favorite quotes for 50:37 is “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts”
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (wrote Sherlock Holmes)
Unfortunately this has been the adversary’s trick… to keep people from seeing truth. If it goes against the grain, it must be false and we can only accept what we believe to be true instead of removing our preconceived notions.
Which is why Brian should not have hired Don Bradley to prove the bias that Joseph was a polygamist. Sorry Brian, don't know if Don meant to let that slip out in his coming back podcast where he tells how the goodness of Joseph helped lead him back to the Gospel.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c For what it's worth, (from the lips of Don Bradley himself) Brian hired Don Bradley *after* he left the church. He was not a member when he was hired to do historical research. It was his historical research that brought him back after seeing evidences. This actually hits my point home.
@@NOSPAM-pb4tu Yes, I know Don Bradley's story. I like Don and I am sure if I were socializing with Brian I would like him too.
So I am a little confused by your point.
The evidence showing that Joseph Smith was innocent of the allegations against Joseph Smith goes against the grain of the current Church/Church Historians/Historians (Brian Hales) narratives "grain." I happen to believe those supporting that Joseph was innocent and polygamy is not supported by scripture has the more solid case.
The current Church/Church historians/Historians saying Joseph was a polygamist and this is also a doctrine supported by scripture also go against the grain of people like myself, Michelle Stone, Jeremy Hoop, Whitney Horning, The Prices and those that agree.
So either way it is going against the grain of someone.
So am curious, just trying to understand what you are trying to convey.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c I was referring to your comment about "bias". Don Bradley didn't have a bias towards the church when he became a historian. He was against the church, so he was not in favor of these things. It was through his study of actual facts that showed him the church is correct and Joseph Smith was indeed a true prophet.
I could care less about people's opinions on polygamy. We are hundreds of years beyond it, and trying to prove whether it was or wasn't supposed to happen has no bearing or effect on my salvation. People are turning it into a red herring. I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet as I know that President Nelson is a true prophet. I also know from scriptures (starting in Daniel) that once Christ's church is restored in these latter-days that it will never fall away from Christ's teachings again. I will only follow a true prophet and not some person's whimsical thoughts who has no authority to claim such things.
@@NOSPAM-pb4tu We are misunderstanding each other. You are correct. I don't want to speak for Don, but yes, I know he had left the church largely over church history and that is when Brian hired him. What I am trying to convey is that Brian hired Don to prove Joseph was a polygamist. I am trying to say that, Brian started with the premise, or bias that Joseph was a polygamist.
The Church's position, since Brigham Young, is that Joseph was a polygamist. However, Heber J. Grant moved to quiet down the polygamy narrative. So it was for many people very jarring, when suddenly Bushman's "cultural biography" of Joseph Smith came out, having dredged up all the cultural opinions of Joseph Smith. And then the Church Historians and church jumped on his bandwagon. A lot of people left the Church over this. The Church then doubled down and put out the Church essay on polygamy which was pretty much canonizing the narrative.
I can understand why Brian, a faithful believing member would be hesitant to take a neutral stance, because who even knew how section 132 came to be? Who knew that originally the D&C had a section declaring the law of God is monogamy?
The Anti-Mormon or former Mormon beliefs are, that Joseph was a polygamist.
The Church was saying Joseph was a polygamist.
So what harm is there hiring someone who does not believe in the Church to do the research, for the purpose of proving Joseph was a polygamist?
To Don's credit, his heart was softened, reading what a good man Joseph was and this brought him back to the Church. It puzzles me that Michelle has come up with so much information that has not been brought forward. But, maybe if there is bias, you just don't notice it. The question just is not there in your mind to look for it.
Proponents of the principle and doctrine of many wives and concubines must believe...
1) That Joseph boldly taught truth except for the highest and holiest principle required for exaltation. That one he even kept from his wife and co-President and Prophet brother Hyrum, and from his counselors, parents, etc, etc.
2) That concubinage is a principle of the Celestial Kingdom and exaltation.
3) That God sometimes commands whoredoms and abominations to build up righteous seed
Really? 🤯
Truth
It is NOT a movement of denying polygamy. It is a movement of defending and exonerating an innocent man and discovering truth and who the real author of polygamy is.
Satan
Brigham Young was prophet of God so it doesnt matter.
Drank the kool-aid I see. 🤦♂️
@@avoice423sure he was a prophet but he got some stuff wrong. The official church position is exactly that. Perhaps, perhaps, polygamy “as practiced by Brigham Young” was also an error. You can hold this view and still be totally faithful lds
@@Heartsinmelody Adam God theory? Plural marriage and priestood, not so much. Maybe his opinions on it may have been flawed but the fact that these two things (plural marriage and the priestood ban) were not reversed for a consideral time says otherwise. We do not even now know the reason for the ban, but that several prophets prayed about it but the time had not arrived until it was lifted. As for plural marriage, beyond the grave it is still in force, as the sealings are still valid. Even the current prophet, pres. Nelson is sealed to two women. And also many of the important patriarchs had more than one wife. Are you forced to live it to be exalted? It does not seem so, but the qualities necessaty to live it successfully are celestial. So it would not supprise me if it is more common than most people think it will be in that kingdom. Why? It is logical, for the Father will provide for those who merit exaltation. How many men are more focused on the pleasures of life and materialism than family? The Celestial kingdom is all about family.
Greg, I know you view yourself as neutral and open minded but your biases come shining through by the title of the two latest polygamy programs. Why didn’t you call the Brian Hales podcast “Brian Hale’s History of Joseph Smith and Polygamy” and Michelle Stone’s episode “Proof Joseph Smith Did Not Practice Polygamy? feat. Michelle Stone”? The slant towards the church’s chosen narrative is really visible in the titles alone.
I fully agree with this. I am open-minded, but I’ve been very clear on my own conclusions. Even from the beginning with Jacob Hansen it was clear what my bias was. Michelle knew this and I repeated it to her before we even started recording. I still let her talk a lot and let her make her points. Not many people will do that when they already have their own conclusion.
@@CwicShow Greg, I appreciate the response. I believe I am seeing a pattern and want to know if you are seeing it too. It seams that TBMs generally have trouble giving room to the possibility that polygamy started with Brigham Young while many folks finding problems with the church and some of its doctrines more easily accept that Joseph Smith abhorred polygamy and fought against it. Are you finding the same thing and if so do you think those biases flow from their feelings about the church in general (i.e. if you believe what the church teaches then JS started polygamy, if you have some doubts about the church the it was all BY)?
@@marksnodgrass8384 To some degree, yes. But I think the implied point within your question is that those who believe Joseph practiced polygamy believe that Brigham Young and all of the prophets since could not have truly been prophets with such an error. And even deeper, they would not have blatantly lied and coerced the membership in their statements, journals, and affadavits.
Is there any visual that can be produced which shows where these documents belong and where they fall on a timeline? When just speaking about them, it's easy to get lost.
The reason I think this would be helpful is because the main advocate for the "non-Plural Marriage by Joseph" is Michelle Stone and she also has a lot of resources that she sites. So it would be good to see them all laid out and then see the arguments as to why some sources are more weighty than others.
And I know that would require more than the average amount of resources to produce and maybe I should do it myself. But there seems to be folks who already know this and have the documents already in order.
I think Gwendolyn Wynn put out a timeline video titled Our Best Story.
“Woe unto you scribes” the hidden history of polygamy. Look it up
Gwendolyn Wyne has the pieces laid out in a timeline here on YT
For those who don’t believe a polygamy conspiracy could happen against Joseph Smith they should ponder on who this verse is talking to.
2 Nephi 27
27 And wo unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord! And their works are in the dark; and they say: Who seeth us, and who knoweth us? And they also say: Surely, your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay. But behold, I will show unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works. For shall the work say of him that made it, he made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, he had no understanding?
It sounds like the Lord is going to be bringing to light works of darkness and things that have been “framed” and hidden in these verses. Anyone who thinks the Book of Mormon and Nephite prophets aren’t talking to and accusing us of these things don’t understand the Book of Mormon or Isaiah. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Brigham Young and his cohorts changed and altered history (works in the dark) so they could “frame” their own narrative. The Book of Mormon is clearly pointing towards conspiracy.
Exactly! This whole problem arises from the False Doctrine that the Prophet can never lead you astray. That idea is incompatible with the Book of Mormon and the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants.
Spot on!
@@DerekPayne1791incompatible with the plan of god. Even prophets have agency
Polygamy or not! It doesn't change my testimony of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as prophets of God. It doesn't change my testimony of the church, the Book of Mormon and Jesus Christ. My focus is now and the future. ❤
It really is something we have to put on the shelf until we get further light and knowledge. But in the meantime, I’m saying nahhh-not a good policy/doctrine/practice. Monogamy for the win
Trust the Experts! In other words, Trust the Arm of Flesh
Large numbers of people don’t need to keep secrets in one grand conspiracy if they have been collectively deceived
So they all recorded details about it in their individual journals because they believed a collective lie?
All these journal entities are lies? That doesn't make sense and it isn't realistic.
And the odds of followers and enemies of JS would cooperate in this conspiracy is astronomically unlikely.
Polygamy deniers are the flat earthers of the church.
@@ThomasFackrell tell us more about your secret involvement with Phil Davis. You seem to have selective Amnesia.
Show people completely erase their memories? This isn’t just a matter of deception, this is a matter of lying about your own experience. This is the biggest hole I see in the argument that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy.
@@CwicShow if the prophet asked you to lie about something, would you do it?
Brian nails it with the metaphor of a grand chess match occurring between God and Satan during the early years of the Restoration, which still continues today of course. That framework is very illuminating!
“Woe unto you scribes” the hidden history of polygamy. Look it up
This topic is one example of many other problematic areas in church history. Lack of transparency is an ongoing problem.
The Church has been very transparent about it. Spiritually immature members, who are lazy learners and lax disciples, simply haven't bothered to understand either gospel doctrine or church history.
It is not the obligation of the church to spoonfeed you every historical fact.
@@knelson3326no it’s not but they could clear this up real quick. Personally I don’t think the church can handle the truth
@@knelson3326And all Church members would have been infinitely better off if they never had been polluted by the GTE written completely by Brian Hales, which, without any compelling evidence abuses the name and true actions of Joseph Smith, who ALWAYS denied preaching or practicing "institutionaly-sanctioned adultery" (polygamy) and Always confirmed his faithful monogamous dedication to his one dear wife, Emma.
We are here to “learn how God works” -Pres. Nelson. We are here to be proved. “I will prove them herewith to see if they will do ALL things that the Lord God command them” We are here to learn obedience and submission to God’s laws and to the counsel of the prophets He has called to establish His doctrine. I really appreciate Bro. Hales defending truth.
Bro. Hales did no such thing
@@Mike-nq7fn People who have no knowledge of what is really true say this. I am very sorry for those who cut the thread that binds them to our prophets and the keys they hold.
@@rebacook9945conflation.
It is a valid point that this is leading people away from the rich and powerful blessings of the temple. You only have so much time to search the depths and breadth of the everlasting covenant, and this is a rabbit hole that does not seem to bear good fruit. The biggest red flag from the interview with Michelle Stone was when she said there is a "spirit of deception" with the leaders of the church. I would offer to anyone going down this rabbit hole on polygamy to turn their energies to searching to have the mysteries of Godliness and the covenant unfolded in their lives through pondering and searching covenant and the talks of President Nelson. I can personally testify that this line of research and energy will bear unimaginable good fruit in your personal life as you strive to play your part. I am sorry for my friends who have turned to this polygamy denial and have stopped going to the temple and wearing the garment. I wish they could see what they are missing in this glorious time when we are finally understanding the depths of what is offered and when maybe we are coming out of condemnation.
Yes indeed!
President Nelson asked us to study the Atonement every week for the rest of our lives. Not much better fruit than that. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. The prophet guides us to Jesus.
It's so sad to see ppl going down this rabbit hole right when we should be preparing to meet our Saviour! It grieves me to see so many holding on to past hurts or perceived slights by other members or leaders. They are throwing away happiness with both hands!
Yeah, who cares about the reality of church history. Save energy by just believing what your told in Sunday school manuals and the guys sitting up front in cushy general corporate conference leader chairs. I don't subscribe to the anti Mormon industry, I just know the Mormon Jesus is NOT the Biblical Jesus. Question LDS theologically and history. Eternity is a terrible thing to waste. Have a blessed day.
@@crazyaboutcards And Jesus only has ever called polygamy an "abomination" and a "whoredom!" Read Jacob 2-3. Stop cherry picking 2:30 out of it to twist the meaning.
I disagree, to some extent, with the claim that critics ‘have a good point’ by questioning the revelation due to the lack of Joseph Smith’s signature. Once again, the critics impose requirements that were never established. The entirety of contemporaneous evidence surrounding Joseph’s plural marriages demonstrates his belief in the principle, so much so that he acted against the prevailing social and moral conventions to carry it out. Joseph Smith’s character strongly suggests that he pursued plural marriage because he believed it was what God wanted him to do.
And do they expect signatures on any other Joseph Smith revelations?
No, but because they don't like it so make a requirement to make it valid
“Woe unto you scribes” the hidden history of polygamy. Look it up
I loved the comment “I don’t believe in 2024 I’m defending polygamy!” That’s amazing! I knew the last days would be awesomely incredible! Yeah, I’m so thankful for Joseph and Hyrum, and all men and women that were so faithful to go against the world and their own moral paradigms to obey God. I pray I have the same strength throughout my life. I believe plural marriage is necessary only on Exaltation, in the Celestial Kingdom. If someone is aiming to the Celestial, but don’t care about Exaltation they have nothing to worry about. If anyone is aiming any other kingdom, they also don’t need to worry. Yes, I don’t think we’ll be asked to live polygamy in this dispensation, I believed we checked that box, again thanks to the early church members.
We don’t have to live polygamy for exaltation. There is no doctrine anywhere that says it is required for exaltation. Bruce R McConkie even wrote in his book on Church doctrine that polygamy is not required for the exaltation.
“Woe unto you scribes” the hidden history of polygamy. Look it up
Read Section 132. It absolutely claims to be a doctrine, and not only that, but a principle, meaning foundational. It literally says many wives and concubines is the way to exaltation! Take it seriously. The revelation says it’s from the Lord, take it serious or throw it out, don’t be Luke-Warm and be spewed out at the last day. We won’t be saved in ignorance, unless you believe that section was added later.
Youre a little off about 132. It doesnt say that plural marriage is required for exaltation. It only says that eternal marriage is required.
“Woe unto you scribes” the hidden history of polygamy. Look it up
I wish he wouldn’t use the phrase “conspiracy theoriest”
That would imply that their ideas would statistically be proven to be accurate later.
Nice, You said it!
There is something to that I believe. That’s why I qualified it.
You can’t stop truth! The comment section should be a clue in! It’s great seeing so many share true history that will eventually clear Joseph, Emma and Hyrum of lying. The church will change their position on polygamy. Just like the priesthood band and all the other incorrect doctrines brought forth by Brigham. It might take time but it will happen. As President Nelson said “Good information brings good revelation.” Good information on church history is finally coming to light. Once the weight of this false tradition is lifted, we will be one step closer to having Zion. So exciting! ❤
Indeed. Sometimes so-called "conspiracies" are true.
("Just because you're paranoic doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.")
In the little cemetery in Parowan, Utah there is a gravestone which belongs to Almera Johnson Smith Barton. She was born in 1812 and died in 1896. She was Joel Hills Johnson’s sister. The inscription in the tombstone reads: wife of Prophet Joseph Smith, wife of Ruben Barton. It also indicates that the tombstone was erected by Johnson’s relatives in 1994, almost 100 years after she died. It will be interesting to know if she used the Smith last name while she was alive (as it was indicated in her tombstone). I watched the interview with Michelle Stone and also this one with Brian C. Hales. Thank you for all you do. I enjoy your show.
I think it’s an interesting question. I haven’t heard anybody else bring this up. Would love to see somebody research this.
Love your channel Greg. It’s the sources you choose to believe. Joseph, Emma, & Hyrum are who I trust. They weren’t using carefully worded denials, they were outright pleading with people not to believe this. The “doctrine” of wives and concubines?? I’m devastated for my ancestors who were tricked into this. I have 4 daughters & it makes me sick to my soul the shenanigans that were going on. Read the words from Christ’s mouth in 3 nephi about adding doctrine & saying it’s from Him.
Thanks for following. I understand the dilemma.
Well said. ❤
I love this interview. Greg, you’re right- the question of Joseph’s polygamy is not essential for exaltation. It’s not even a temple recommend question. Most of us who have problems with the polygamy truther movement are more concerned about the things that the movement leads to, like temple denial.
"Temple denial." First time I've heard that. The whole doctrine of the family is based on 132. There is no other source. The sealing ceremony is based on 132. RMN is sealed to two women. BY had a profound influence on the temple liturgy. I have to laugh at people who devote their lives to temple worship, but completely ignore the celestial experience. You nailed it with that phrase.
Dan, you are so very wrong! Read Section 132. It absolutely claims to be a doctrine, and not only that, but a principle, meaning foundational. It literally says many wives and concubines is the way to exaltation! Take it seriously. The revelation says it’s from the Lord, take it serious or throw it out, don’t be Luke-Warm and be spewed out.
If people jump to a conclusion about temple denial then that really is devastating but two things can be true at once. Joseph can be innocent of plural marriage and the church still holds the keys. No prophet is perfect.
@@ED-wired That is a conclusion some people have come to. But there is a lot that follows, like a massive conspiracy of lying that went on for a long time among all of the top leadership of the church.
@@DerekPayne1791 Section 132 does not make any particular claims about Joseph's polygamy, which was the focus of my comment.
I have trouble with people stating their position with complete certainty. We all should be willing to say that there are no certain conclusions concerning polygamy and that we don't completely understand it. Some day the answers will come. There are no video recordings of the past. I really appreciate what Steven Harper said concerning polygamy. I highly respect him as a historian.
He said, "There is much that I do not know. I do not know how to understand plural marriage. I have studied the complicated historical record of it diligently and there is very much that remains unclear. I don’t know exactly how to understand D&C section 132. I don’t know what to make of the problematic letter purportedly from Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon. I recently gave a talk at a leadership meeting. My topic was historical issues with which Saints sometimes struggle. I catalogued the historical problems, briefly describing each. While describing the received wisdom on plural marriage, I had a distinct and undeniable thought that came from outside me. “You do not know what you are talking about,” it said. It was right. I do not know how to think about plural marriage. I continue to thoroughly examine the historical record, seeking light and truth by study and also by faith. I do know, as a result of that process, that Helen Kimball and Lucy Walker both left testimonies that Joseph did not exploit them, and that they both testified that they received their own revelations, as Joseph invited them to do, before being sealed to him. In other words, I know that the historical record created by witnesses and participants does not match the sensational books and online material created by people who know less than I do. And I know that I don’t know." This statement is on the FAIR website under LDS Scholars testify.
I'm comfortable saying that there is much I don't know. If we are trying to be critical thinkers we have to make room for the fact that there is much we don't know. To state our views on the matter as fact, even after extensive study, is presumptuous.
I agree actually. And I think people should STOP TEACHING it as a doctrine and celestial law. This is the problem.
Hales’ point #2 is moot because he believes that Joseph was involved in a conspiracy and that that’s why he straight up lied about not practicing polygamy.
Either way you have to believe in a conspiracy.
Greg, you said that you don’t know anyone that denied being a plural wife. The fact is that out of the wives that Brian claims are Joseph’s there are like 3 that actually say in their own words that they are Joseph’s wives.
There are many who did actually deny being Joseph’s wife when others claimed them to be.
Go to the video entitled “Woe be unto you, scribes: The Hidden History of Polygamy”
Brian and other historians are apologists for polygamy and that is why they find JUST ENOUGH to give their views support, but never give the full story. This video that I shared does give the whole story.
@@RBD582 lol
@@RBD582sooo true. Wish he could see this comment
Great interview! Brian Thank you for using your resources in producing this research.
Honestly I think it is more important to study the Gospel and follow the Doctrine. It is way more important to make and keep sacred covenants with God. STUDY, LEARN, AND BECOME ONE WITH GOD. I for one trust God to judge righteously. I reflect on a meeting I had with my Stake President. These are not his exact words, but I think his message is very important. We can't live in the past or future. Give them both to God because he is the great healer and judge. Focus on what you can do today to get closer to God and he will take care of the rest. We have such a myopic view of the world. We need to let our will be swallowed up in His. Focus on what we can do today to follow Him and serve others.
Section 132 literally lays out “the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines”
According to 132 you cannot be exalted without living polygamy.
@@DerekPayne1791 haha, true; 132 is filled with such nonsense counter to the Gospel. Women should not have to be subjected to listening to 132 and its caste system for wives and concubines
Why cannot the church release Clayton's journal, as they already promised they would?
I think when it comes to history, personally I can't find a reason to get upset or joyous over anything. The fact of the matter is its in the past, leave it in the past, reflect on it but remain neutral. In terms of survey questions where its strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree I think its important to remain neutral. The only time for any response beyond neutral is if you've lived it yourself and if its a negative response thats beyond 20 years have you even actually learned anything from Jesus because its a blessing to forgive. Having more than a neutral response to anything beyond yourself or at least within your lifetime- ditch it. Our perception of matters 200 years ago is purely based on the 2024 mindset rather than an 1800 one, we are pansies by comparison ti them in every definition of the word so ditch the effort and ditch the emotional responses. Whatever happened to my body my choice- let them speak for themselves in the second coming not you speaking on their behalf because we don't know what its like to be in their shoes, no book, movie, song, artwork could even fully grasp it all.
❤ agree to a point, but so many members think we will be living it again. So I think we need to be clear on what is the doctrine
Even the RLDS church whose main claim to separate from the main church was that JS didn’t practice polygamy, had to finally admit that the preponderance of evidence supported that he did.
Hi... can you provide some sources for this. I think this could be a really important piece of evidence for my own research. Thanks!
@@FlyFisher-xd6je read the book Joseph Smith III
“Woe unto you scribes” the hidden history of polygamy. Look it up
When I was in Nauvoo years back, you could buy Brian's books on Joseph Smith's polygamy in the RLDS bookstore. 😂
Im straight and simple about this. A few years back this had me all confused. So I did what Id taught so many others to do; I studied it out, everything I could, and then I prayed about it. God actually did answer my prayer about this. God really did confirm to me that Joseph got it right and that He really did command to teach this principle of plural marriage. You dont have to like it, I sure didn't. But there I found myself on my knees praying, and received confirmation that section 132 was legit His words. If I could get an answer on this, anyone can. Yet what I find, is just like so many people reject the missionaries bringing the messages of this restoration to their door, so too we, as members, reject and pick and choose what we will believe and reject without seeking Gods mind about it all. We just close the door, saying "no." We know better and dont feel the need to ask Him. And yet we will at times put our noses in the air at the audacity of closed minded non members unwillingness to hear and listen to the Spirit, however there are things within that we ourselves are no better off. I invite you to study, get the Spirit, learn all you can from correct sources, abandon preconceived notions and truly ask Him. He wont ask you to pratice it since thats not currently being required, but He will answer you about His teachings and requirements to Joseph and the early church. I believe this is highly important. Now that I know for myself, IF this were to be taught again, I would not fear. However, knowing myself, if I hadn't prayed about it until I got an answer, and again, IF it were eventually brought back, I would have fallen apart. God answers the humble and true heartfelt seekers.
Good for you brother
I think that might be the best solution I've heard so plainly.
Cool, I got the total opposite answer. And yes, I’m still faithful ❤
@ED-wired Im not seeking to tell anyone else they are wrong with answers to prayers. Only this was my experience. It surely isnt the first time two people felt compelled in different directions, hence the many different churches in the world these days.
Greg and Brian, sincere question. I do believe that Joseph introduced the endowment but what about Brighams claim that Joseph asked him to organize and systematize the ceremony afterward? Isn’t it possible that this is where much of the masonry and parts that people find troubling came from?
Joseph was a Mason. Became a Master Mason within a day or two. He borrowed some of the practice for the temple. He had a full knowledge of it. Taught it to Brigham and others.
@@CwicShow For sure, I’m not trying to deny that he was a Mason. Brighams statement just indicates that whatever Joseph revealed was added to by Brigham, as Brigham himself claims that he was asked to organize it afterward. I do believe that Masonic elements were added as a familiar teaching mechanism of that time, one that many would be familiar with.
Look up Karen Hyatt, she did a very thorough analysis of Joseph's alleged polygamy.
Look up this.... Look up that.... How about we look up the word of God as accepted as scriptures for generations? Who wants to wipe out history or remake it? What kind of result has happened from doing that all over the world many times repeatedly in history?
All Karen Hyatt did was repeat the same old anti-polygamy arguments that have been regurgitated over and over again by polygamy deniers. She doesn’t even read statements in context and ignores clarifying information. She relies upon conspiracy and anti-Mormon rhetoric to shape her understanding and her documentary was fill with lies and misrepresentations of the facts.
@@stephtimms1776All of the LDS Canon calls polygamy an abomination. Yes!, use the scriptures to send the idea of polygamy back to hell where it came from. And yes that is scriptural, search Satan, Lamech and Master Mahan.
@@stephtimms1776 Coming to the knowledge of truth is not wiping out or remaking history. Getting to the bottom of things is how we UNDERSTAND HISTORY.
@@stephtimms1776 Well scripture has also convinced me that God has never commanded polygamy. This isn't only a matter of early church history.
Thank you Greg for having this episode. It was well known and believed when I was growing up that it was hard for the people to practice polygamy but they did it as a matter of commandment. Not popular but true
If you look up the lds topic essay on the church website, it consistently says that the people “thought” it was a commandment. It was just their interpretation. Modern prophets and apostles have publicly taught it is not doctrinal
Brian, who has no qualifications in history (an amateur historian, if you will) has been the wrong person to try and carry this. He is like Kamala Harris - the more you get of him, the less convincing his position becomes.
Who are the non-amateur historians saying Joseph did not practice polygamy?
@@CwicShow you miss the point - I’m saying Brian is the wrong person to carry this - he isn’t qualified and isn’t the best advocate for a position that has a lot of credibility. I would argue having a better “mouth piece” would result in less people looking at alternative narratives.
Thanks Greg and Brian. This was a clear and respectful conversation.
I just don’t understand how we HAVE to pick polygamy or not. Why can’t we say plural sealings? I get the argument but it initially brings up whether there were consummated relationships. Can we not focus on the spiritual?
Because the Book of Mormon says It was used to raise up seed. So wouldn’t you need to consummate?
@@ED-wired No, not every one. You're focusing too much on the numbers, not the righteous part. It means to raise up a righteous posterity, to serve God.
@@stephtimms1776does seed does not equal posterity?
@@ED-wired "raise up seed up unto me (God)", means a rightoeous posterity now and in the next life.
Right, because Joseph was also sealed to men. No "seed" raising there. Sealing does not equal marriage.
Yeah, Brian. Not everything Satan says is false either. Why do we refer to him as Brian C. Hales? Does he think he’s on the level of apostle? He sounds like he’s a PR guy that needs to keep status quo. He won’t take a look at anything outside of his narrative. Also, he says he doesn’t want to be disrespectful while also calling people who don’t believe Joseph was a polygamist “deniers”. Why call disrespectful names? Why not just say “those who don’t believe it”?
I have known Joseph practiced polygamy when I as a teenager back in the 80s and from that day to today it have never bothered me. Joseph clearly as not open about it but he had good reason. He learned very early in life how people can't handle truth. He told some people early on about the First Vision. He got persecution from it. He learned that some truth is best not told to people. What benefit would he have received had he openly told people about it? Would persecution decrease or increase? I believe the latter so better not to tell people than just get more problems for telling the truth openly. Joseph first priority was to God. Giving truth to enemies of the Church who would only use that to cause more problems was not a priority for him. I would have don the same. Some people just can't handle the truth thus they do not deserve to know the truth.
You nailed it. People can't handle the truth. The revisionists, be it Michelle Stone or whoever else, simply can't emotionally deal with the issue. So, they've chosen to engage in revisionist history, even if it means calling many prophets and apostles adulterers, ignoring the faith and sacrifice of many of were obedient to the practice, and undercutting the history and legitimacy of the Church.
💯
“Woe unto you scribes” the hidden history of polygamy. Look it up
The challenge for me is that promoting the narrative that Joseph engaged in polygamy, (while claiming to defend the church) is actually causing massive destruction to it; because in today’s world it only takes a few moments to read his denials and come to the conclusion that these are NOT “carefully worded”. They would be lies.
It is this narrative that gives power to the CES letters, which in turn drives people away. Then those noticing this trend and discussing it are accused as being the source of the damage, which is ridiculous. Unless we truly believe in obscuring truth. Which I hope we don’t.
So are we left with an alternative? What if those weren’t denials and we are just missing context?
It isn’t like we haven’t made errors before.
Sure if we believe the church is a boat or train to heaven, then we might be unable to consider that we took a left somewhere in our early history.
Does anyone really believe that? That we couldn’t make a significant error and just turn back, WITHOUT accusing each other of apostasy. Wouldn’t the atonement apply to us, or are we the only organization of people who are above it, and must be right all the time?
The problem is in what we THINK the church is. We assumed it was right, and everyone else was wrong, therefore it needs to be defended.
But what if that wasn’t what was in Christ’s mind. What if the church is a sophisticated wrestling mat? Where we contend with the opposition that Lehi said, was IN all things NOT between all things.
That the church was the best place for us to humiliate ourselves, get on our knees and ultimately yoke ourselves to Christ. The church being a catalyst and not a destination.
If this were true, we wouldn’t need to be offended at an idea that a second prophet might have made a significant mistake. In fact, it might even make total sense.
We wouldn’t have to accuse someone believing this as denying “keys”.
In this light, the spirit may be unrestrained enough to help us see a different context to our history that makes room for the possibility that we got it wrong and that Joseph wasn’t lying.
One that also gives grace to all of us, prophets all the way to members, that we can easily be deceived and we can easily repent if we were.
In this arena we can have room for the variety in our beliefs, that give the opportunity for the spirit to work with us individually. God isn’t redeeming institutions, he is redeeming souls. Let’s defend each other instead.
Might I suggest that everyone here go listen to “a year of polygamy” podcast. It goes into great depth on the history of polygamy in the early church, and delve into the diaries and feelings and experiences of the women involved.
Don’t be afraid
Yeah, most can’t handle the truth
We are trained not to hear the cries of the women. Brigham Young had 10 divorces! Heber C. Kimball had 16! And so on. Polygamy was chaos and lies in the beginning, middle and end.
Joseph was innocent of those allegations.
We talked about it in Seminary in 1977-78. D&C/Church History. I think 99% of the kids in class, including myself, were descendants of polygamous families in the Church. One of my great grand aunts was married to Joseph.
Over 20% of current church membership are descendants of a polygamous relationship. There are even prophets of the church who are descendants from a polygamous marriage.
That you or others are descendants means nothing concerning if polygamy was of God or not.
@@jondaich3582 Yes. However it serves to remind members in 2024 that polygamy was a real practice and not some fairy tale as Mormons of the past have claimed. You may not believe it was a revelation from God, but over 20% of current membership in the church are descendants from a polygamous marriage. That means current members can't deny its place in history and that the church (at least after 1842) was founded on it. There children that came from these unions. Some men faced prison for practicing it. Women in the LDS church hate talking about it, but it is part of history.
I have 5 great (great great etc.) grandfathers who practiced polygamy. But in each case my line comes through the first wife. So I’m not a product of polygamy. Are you sure you are?
No she wasn’t
Just my opinion on it, but I believe members have been too afraid to stand up and say, "Yes! Joseph Smith/we practiced polygamy!" for fear of worldly ridicule, resulting in a softer and softer view on the issue over the generations. Growing up, it was always a hush-hush conversational topic. Members need to have the courage to own it.
Agreed. We have little issue talking about Israel (Jacob) practicing, and we have no obvious indication that The Lord told him too, likely it was just approved of.
Here we have The Prophet being commanded to institute it in specific ways and practice it himself.
I don’t feel I need to justify it to anyone, but I also don’t try to disown it.
Have faith That Christ is able to do His own work.
It also goes against our cultural belief's as well.
No, we need to have the humility to disown this abomination and whoredom as God calls it in Jacob 2-3
100% agree. I decided that I would never be ashamed of any doctrine of the church, including section 132.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c You are such a moral coward. I would guess that you’ll leave the church within a few years. You probably have already left the church, you just dont realize it yet.
I have not listened to the podcast. But I have talked to Brian before. And I will say that Joseph Smith did not consummate any of his marriages. Nothing in his notes said he did. No children. Yet he was very prolific with his wife Emma. And the wives that he was sealed to were very prolific with their husbands. So no consummations. But lots of Sealings.
They keep saying Fanny was a plural wife, yet the supposed timing of that dalliance dates to before the Spring of 1836. 🤔 Hmmm, I wonder why that's significant?
Because The keys had not been given yet to allegedly seal plural marriages. The Fanny Alger incident was not what Brian purports it to be. He is ASSSUMING again....
Mary Fielding Smith was married to Hyrum Smith. She later was a plural wife to Heber Kimball. I'm guessing if Joseph and Hyrum weren't supporting/practicing plural marriage, that she certainly would have known that, not gone west, and certainly wouldn't have become a plural wife to Heber.
This idea Joseph did none of this is just downright ridiculous and doesn't hold up to the historical record or logic. 🤦♂️
@cwicshow regarding the segment on the World's Worst Transparency-ist Brian (@brianhales8971) is being disingenuous here. It wasn't just one interview where Brian claimed there were no notes on the polygamy question - there were multiple interviews on multiple channels where he told the same story. Furthermore, if you go back and watch those interviews he says that he "saw the notes" and that they contained information about Emma's answers regarding the Book of Mormon but not the notes on the answers about polygamy. They are the same set of notes. If he saw one part he saw the other part. He then goes on to call Joseph Smith III a liar ("I don't believe Joseph Smith the 3rd") insinuating that he just made up the answers to his mother's death bed interview. At best this is lazy research and he shouldn't be held up as any kind of expert. At worst he is intentionally being deceptive. Couple this with Brian's efforts to deplatform Michelle Stone at historical conferences, his contacting of her church leaders to try and get her excommunicated, and even some veiled threats on his part (along the lines of "you will regret this if you continue on this path") and you soon see a very different picture of this man. If you haven't watched the entire episode of the world's worst transparency-ist, (I'm guessing he only sent you the intro) I encourage you to do so.
Yes, Brian is playing the victim here but he has been relentless in his quest to silence Michelle. Rather than engaging with her on the sources he reverts to attacks on her church membership.The exact opposite of a transparancy-ist.
It's so weird that Brian is held up as an expert on this topic. I asked him a question about the Whitney "revelation", something along the lines of, "why would God tell a polygamist to cleave to this one wife and keep himself from all others?" Rather than answering my question, he countered with, "do you believe in priesthood keys?" I've never heard him answer a simple, direct question when the obvious answer would contradict his narrative. He's an apologist for polygamy, not an impartial researcher.
I'd like to point out one further discrepancy. The idea that those who Joseph Smith had already given the priesthood to do were denied access to Temples by Brigham Young because they were black add the complete disagreement between Joseph Smith and his understanding of the black race being of proper lineage. And not only baptizing them but giving them the full priesthood. And Brigham Young claiming that they were slovenly low individuals and did not deserve the blessings that the priesthood should bring to them. In direct violation of the edicts of the prophet. And the only one who ever pointed out to Brigham Young that he was a prophet was Brigham Young. He didn't take over till 3 years later, and I understand that he even had started a church of a different name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, and he was the only one in charge of that church. He had created the church out of thin air without the knowledge of Joseph Smith. And he changed the name of the church after the death of Joseph Smith. I'm sure that he understood how to make sure that paperwork was in order it would have been a lot easier than to control the narrative at that time, than it would be today.
Especially when you're willing to do to people what Brigham Young was clearly capable of doing to people. And then claiming it was ordered by God himself.
Enjoy your apostasy
@@jaredshipp9207seriously?!!!
I think that all this historicity is awesome. But that's not WHY these deniers deny. They deny because it seems impossible to bear. I think we should be looking at socially optimal internal social mechanics of polygamy if we are to convince deniers sufficient to remove their excuses.
We all KNOW that there are wrong and abusive ways to do polygamy. But If it was ever right to practice polygamy then there has to be a RIGHT way to do it.
It’s not impossible to bear. Most “deniers” believed the narrative until they actually asked for a witness
Just like there's a "right" way to practice communism...
Because Brians evidence does not stand up to scrutiny.
@@ED-wired I'm not saying it's impossible to beat. I'm descended from a second wife forced apart by the Edmunds Act. She was salty about being abandoned, not happy to get away. Course she was only the second of two, but still.
@@noskalborg723my husband is a product of polygamy. Could give a rat’s butt 😂
There is a problem with people who deny the prophet Joseph introducing plural marriage to the Church. It's wishful thinking by people who have not settled this issue in their psyche because of modern cultural more's coupled with their biased (traditional American Christian) views regarding the issue.
It's cute how you make assumptions and judgements about total strangers. I had settled the issue of polygamy before being led to research the subject and after 10 years and 100's of hours of research looking at literally everything out there it was very clear that Joseph wasn't a polygamist.
“Woe unto you scribes” the hidden history of polygamy. Look it up
@@ED-wired She did an amazing job putting it all together, great video.