Rob, I have been mightily impressed with your videos. Your research is fascinating and I agree with every conclusion I have heard you utter so far. I was born in 1957, and raised in SLC. I spent the first 55 years of my life immersed deeply in Mormon culture. I served a mission, married in the temple, and was fully active in church including numerous leadership positions including bishop and stake high councilman. A series of events led to a crisis in my life and for the first time in my life I began to question many of the dogmas I had accepted my whole life. I began a period of introspection and study and prayer for clarity of understanding. I began a search for truth - not what I had been taught was truth, but what I could discern was truth based on my own wisdom after a lifetime of experience. In the many years of my deep immersion in church life, I had often questioned accepted doctrines and beliefs, and I had often dismissed what I considered to be “Mormon mythology”, but I had brushed it away from my mind somehow realizing that to spend time seriously thinking about some things would put me on a path that could put me on the path leading to “apostasy” which was a dark path that would lead me down to the devil. Now, I consider myself a searcher. I search for truth. I have learned that the truth will set me free. I feel that I have been hiking up a mountain, and that suddenly I have emerged from the fog that enshrouded me before, and I can see a vista I was unable to see before. My search for more truth and understanding has led me to sources of truth such as yourself. I appreciate your hard work and your dedication to discovering the truth about the history of the church that molded who we are and how we were molded as young men and women in the church that was such an overwhelming influence on our lives. I hunger for your insight. I look at my subscriptions in my RUclips app often hoping to see something new from you. You bring light to those of us who are on a journey of discovery. I’m sure I speak for many who sincerely thank you for your courage and your dedication to your work. I hope you realize how much we all support you and thank God for your commitment to your mission.
@@DKMELT Most haven’t read the Book of Mormon so to say they haven’t read the NT is an understatement. However those who’ve served in the roles he has are generally well versed. The truth however won’t be found in the NT it’s nothing more than Roman propaganda and mythology. The Greco Roman influence on the creation of Jesus is the greatest hoax ever played on mankind.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am working through much the same things. I am not sure what Melton is going on about with New Testament comment. I guess he is hoping you will give up Joseph and the BOM and follow the born again movement. As if. I know Joseph was a prophet and the BOM is the word of God. Brigham and the others poisoned the well, the tares always grow up with the wheat, or choke it off. Thanks for your thoughts on your journey.
@@FleeingBabylon-Now Rick, In my search, my greatest answers have come to me while studying the Book of Mormon. I agree that Brigham Young and many of his like minded supporters and successors bastardized the church government and used the words of the prophet Joseph Smith to their own selfish purposes and introduced darkness and secrecy into the church for wicked reasons. Shedding light and truth through honest study and research of history as Rob Fotheringham is doing helps us shed the scales from our eyes and see that the true gospel as revealed to Joseph is not a gospel of secrecy (secret combinations) and darkness, but light and truth. The truth shall set us free. My search for truth has made me stronger, and has made my relationship with my Father in Heaven more honest.
@@DKMELT Melton, I have read the New Testament. I have learned and profited much from the NT, but I have profited even more from my study of the Book of Mormon. Thanks
Rob, I really love your work. I’m so glad you are making it available again. I sure wish Matt from Mormon Rescue would make his information available again. Accurate information is certainly valuable in today’s time.
I just checked and Mormon rescue channel is operational. I haven’t heard of this guy but I’m going to check him out. He has videos as recent as three days ago
Rob, would you consider doing a deep dive on the temple endowment, how much of what we currently have can be traced back to Joseph Smith and what was added or changed by Brigham Young or those that came afterwards? Thanks.
I too would love more info regarding the current temple endowment. Thank you again for not just your hard work and dedication but also for making it available for the rest of us!!! You have an amazing gift!
I was wondering the same thing. There have been so many dramatic changes since I received my endowment in 1976, and I wonder how much was introduced by BY and what was actually given by JS.
The biggest reason to doubt the happiness letter I think is that Joseph and Sidney talked about it and Sidney thought it wasn't Joseph. If my daughter had been propositioned like this then I wouldn't rest unless I was 100% satisfied. Sidney also was very much against polygamy.
LDS historian Richard van Wagoner wrote this: "Nancy's brother John, recounting the incident years later in an affidavit, remembered that 'Nancy refused him, saying if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all, and took her bonnet and went home, leaving Joseph.' Nancy withheld details of the situation from her family until a day or two later, when a letter from Smith was delivered by Smith's personal secretary, Willard Richards. 'Happiness is the object and design of our existence,' the letter began. 'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.' The letter went on to teach that 'whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.....' "Nancy showed Smith's letter to her father and told him of the incident at the Hyde residence. Rigdon demanded an audience with Smith. George W. Robinson reported that when Smith came to Rigdon's home, the enraged father asked for an explanation.....[After which the confrontation of which Robinson wrote, quoted above, ensued.] "Much later, John Rigdon elaborated that 'Nancy was one of those excitable women and she went into the room and said Joseph Smith you are telling that which is not true you did make such a proposition to me and you know it.' "Robinson wrote that Smith, after acknowledging the incident, claimed he had propositioned Nancy because he 'wished to ascertain whether she was virtuous or not, and took that course to learn the facts!' But the Rigdon family would not accept such an explanation. They were persuaded that the rumors about the prophet's polygamy doctrine had been confirmed. The issue continued to be a serious source of contention between the two church leaders until Smith's death in 1844. According to John Rigdon, Sidney told the family that Smith 'could never be sealed to one of his daughters with his consent as he did not believe in the doctrine.' Rigdon preferred to keep his difficulties with Smith private, but Bennett's detailed disclosures made this impossible. "A Mormon newspaper, 'The Wasp,' printed on July 20 a number of sworn statements by prominent Nauvoo citizens affirming Joseph Smith's 'high moral character' and declaring him not guilty of any of Bennett's published accusations. Orson Pratt would not sign the letter, nor would Sidney Rigdon or George W. Robinson." ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," pp. 32-33.) It is speculated that Sidney declined to publicly denounce Smith over that incident because he feared that it might bring down the whole church and himself along with it. Although Smith survived that scandal, polygamy led directly to his death two years later.
Thanks Rob Your research has brought truth to light that has been hidden far too long. Kncow that your effors are appreciated by many and as always your information is well documented.
As were Sylvia Sessions and Elizabeth Durfee for Joseph Smith: "Joe had in his employ certain old women, called "Mothers in Israel," such as Mrs. Tailor, old Madam Durfee, and old Madam Sessions, in whom the people have great confidence, but in fact, they are the most depraved hypocrits on Earth. If Joe wishes to make a spiritual wife of a certain young lady, he would send one of these women to her. The old women, would tell the young lady, that she had had a vision, in which it was revealed to her that she was to be sealed up to Joe, (or his friend as the case might be) as a spiritual wife, to be his in time and eternity. This would astonish the young innocent, but scripture would soon be resorted to, to prove the correctness of the doctrine, and that it was proper in the sight of the Lord. Soon after this Joe would appear, and tell the lady that the Lord had revealed to him that Mrs. so & so, had had a vision concerning her, and had been to see her. Not suspecting any collusion the young lady would be astonished, and being strong in the faith, she could have no doubt but that Joe spoke by authority of God, He would then ply his arguments, and with the utmost sanctity speak "in the name of the Lord" and say that at such a time, and at such a place it had been revealed to him that she should be his or his friend's, in time and eternity. If she objected he would quote his scripture and his revelations, and thus by playing on her superstitious credulity, and artfully at the same time inflaming her passions he seldom failed of his object. Being once successful, he held the fear of exposure over her as a rod to prevent rebellion from his allegiance. When, as happened in the cases of Miss Martha Brotherton and Miss Nancy Rigdon, his overtures were rejected with disdain and exposure threatened he would set a hundred hell hounds on them, to destroy their reputations. This was a specimen of the mode and manner of Joe in carrying his vile measures of seduction." ---Joseph H. Jackson, August 1844.
@@icecreamladydriver1606 LOL. That is utterly false. You obviously know very little about this subject. The first accusations of Joseph practicing polygamy came in 1842, two years before his death. The "Nauvoo Expositor" newspaper, which exposed more details about Joseph's polygamy practice, was published 20 days before his death. In fact, Joseph's illegal order to have the paper's printing press destroyed set off the chain of events that led to his death. The reason I quoted this passage from Joseph H. Jackson's narrative is because he was a close aide to Joseph Smith for almost two years, working alongside him and interacting with other high-ranking church leaders and women. Jackson actually wrote his narrative before Smith's death, but it was not published until a few weeks later. But it's obvious that his account is credible because he could not have known the names of so many church insiders and other details about happenings in Nauvoo if he didn't personally experience it. I recommend that you study an issue before you try to offer opinions on it.
Thank you for the great work you do. It's one of those cases where the feelings that rise in me are opposite to the reaction; because It just makes me smile - in desperation. However even if it is after 44 years, I'm awake now and must try to personally find God. Thank you again for a work I couldn't do.
I have loved these articulate and well researched videos, thank you. I am starving for more of the authentic truth, but am discriminating the sources, since the pendulum swings both ways. I am so glad to find your videos. I especially appreciate your approach to include testimonies of the women who would not consent. As I compare and contrast the journal entries of the women who did; and the women who didn’t enter polygamy, I find it comes down to two groups. This may be an oversimplification, but it seems that there will always be groups that can be more easily persuaded using ‘secrecy’ and then there is The other group, that just won’t partake in anything that is not out right front and center. Truth is always self evident and doesn’t need secrecy or covenants to “ lie for the Lord”. 🙏❤️🇺🇸
Yep, polygamy shows us the difference between women who would accept anything that their religious leader commands, even if it involves adultery, and the women who are wise and virtuous enough to reject it. It illustrates the danger of following any religious leader who claims to speak directly for God. And then there were women like Sarah Pratt, who endured living in polygamy for years, but then finally divorced her husband Orson and condemned the practice.
@@jennedge123 If the LDS church didn't ex Rob because his views oppose church leaders, they could have ex'ed him for publishing material that is demonstrably false.
There it is, the Masonry connection I've been independently researching 10:48. The temple ceremony as we've been taught is NOT of God. But of the little god. Only he works in secrets under penalty of death. Great work as always Rob 🙌
If you're interested in the connections between Mormonism and Masonry, I suggest you read "Is there no hope for the widow's son?" by Dr. Reed Durham. It's on-line.
I have a hard time taking Proceedings of the Mormons at face value. Certainly, there is some truth however I wouldn't base an academic argument on it. It is a sensationalized account with a lot of statements that are not provable.
Reading through the whole thing, it also strikes me as kind of a mixed bag. The parts involving her personal experience seem credible, but the bits about "training the Indians," etc., seem like sensationalism passed on from John C. Bennett or something.
The fact that Joseph, Hyrum and Samuel were killed by the followers of polygamy gang would make it certain that Joseph was not lying and they were. The devil does not kill his own when they are in league with him, at least not until they have no use for him anymore.
@@FleeingBabylon-Now No Mormons had anything to do with the Smith's murders. That is just a wild conspiracy theory. The men who killed the Smiths are well-known and went to trial. They included Warsaw Signal editor Thomas Sharp, militia leaders Levi Williams and Mark Aldrich. I suggest you read an article on-line titled "Meet the Defendants in the Carthage Conspiracy Trial." The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that Joseph Smith originated polygamy in Mormonism and lied about it. Some people just don't want to believe the evidence because they worship Joseph Smith.
@@randyjordan5521 you are free to believe that without proof. The same LDS got Joseph into Liberty Jail as well. They just did not succeed in killing him there. Right hand Brutus
@@FleeingBabylon-Now LOL. What you're telling me is that you didn't read the article I cited. Instead of continuing to show your ignorance, I suggest you educate yourself on the subject. In a June 11, 1844 editorial in his newspaper, the "Warsaw Signal"---16 days before the Smiths were killed by a vigilante mob---Thomas Sharp wrote of Joseph Smith's destruction of the "Nauvoo Expositor" printing press: "War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!-Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS! to ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!!" Maybe you can use your sleuthing skills to deduce from this statement who was behind the Smith's killings.
Russell m Nelson said that the Lord will preform some of his mightiest works between now and when he comes again.. this work and bring the saints to a knowledge of the truth is part of his prophecy.. I am currently active and hold positions in my ward.. before I was converted to the Lord I have seen and done alot of bad things before I became active member .. but the Brigham young and his secret works are evil. It even smells of evil.. I hope I haven’t offended anyone With this reference.. love your videos.. thank you
I too am very active and will never leave the church. I love the gospel, I'm grateful for our leaders and so glad we have some foundation to get us through these last days. I also have a firm testimony in temple work and have had some amazing experiences. I will say...polygamy never bore good fruit. How can God command chastity for some, not for others, total fidelity for some, not for others, one heart and one mind with your spouse for some, not for others. That would make God a changing God and a liar. Over the years one thing I've noticed... the polygamy stories are never consistent. They change all the time. If it was real revelation we'd have the same story over and over but they've never been consistent. I'm grateful the truth is finally coming out, it actually strengthens my testimony to know God is still who he says he is and a good reminder that Brigham Young isn't nor was he ever God. Too many members refuse to question his integrity.
Do you think it's feasible or likely that BY and HCK would have used someone to impersonate JS when it would have been very easy for Martha to eventually meet JS in person and could then divulge the deception to others. It seems like a really big risk. ???
I don't believe so. I think it is more likely that they did what John C. Bennett had done previously and told Martha that Joseph sanctioned it and that it came from him. Martha being so disgusted by the whole thing could have made up the part of Joseph coming in, to implicate him as she believed what she had been told, that it came from him. Even more likely is that, that part of the story could have come from John C. Bennett who also claimed that he was locked in a room by Joseph. It was proven by non-mormons that his claim was false. It was Bennett who solicited the affidavit from Martha and published it. It is also possible that they presented polygamy to Martha and then had Joseph come in and talk about marriage, having no idea what she had previously been told. And she just thought they were all talking about the same thing. What we know for sure is that Brigham and Heber were proficient liars and manipulators and that Joseph was very trusting and nieve. It would have been very easy for the above scenerio to have played out. That is also what could have happened with Helen Mar Kimball. Her father presented polygamy to her told her he wanted their families tied together, then had JOseph come over to explain the importance of marriage to her and she just assumed he was talking about the same thing her father had just introduced to her. Heber may have even asked Joseph to show his daughter what a marriage ceremony was like by putting on a pretend one that she believed was real.
I'm not with you on the fake Joseph thing. Even if she hadn't seen Joseph Smith, she eventually WOULD have, and that risk would make it difficult for the Apostles to overcome. I'm more in line with the idea that she was propositioned by Brigham and Heber, but that when she came into Bennet's orbit, Bennet sold her on the idea that Joseph needed to be implicated to make the story more credible. The dialogue between Smith and Brotherton seems fake, almost as if Bennet's voice is there and altered Brotherton's affidavit with her permission. Brotherton, Rigdon, and Sarah Pratt were connected with Bennet and his attempts to smear Joseph. Once Bennet was fully out of the picture, we don't have any more of these scorned women who run and tell tales, usually through Bennet. The strategy shifted from Bennet flaming Joseph publicly to the Apostles framing Joseph privately. I think that makes sense if they knew his days were numbered.
The Bennett scenario you describe seems plausible. There’s a reference I didn’t include in the video that may help explain my conclusion. Martha Brotherton’s sister explained that “My father only stayed nine weeks in the church after we came to Nauvoo.“ If by Nauvoo she meant the Nauvoo area including Warsaw, then Martha’s father would have left the church by January 27 of 1842, which aligns with a letter Joseph Fielding wrote to England that same month (January 1842) warning “some will send home an evil report, such as brother B. from Macclesfield,” referencing Martha’s father. The source I mentioned comes from a letter written in Nauvoo by William Clayton on March 30, 1842, referencing the Brothertons’ allegations making their way back to England. Clayton wrote, “you say you are almost wearied with the lies, etc. This is what we must expect in these days for this is a lying and wicked generation even many in whom we have a great confidence, when we see them brought into trial, give way to an evil spirit. Old Mr. B-, and daughter, like many others, were assailed by the apostate crews, who they scattered on the banks of the river; and all manner of evil reports were sounded in their ears, after they became discouraged; and, finally, almost denied the faith before they came near Nauvoo. People coming here with their minds thus prejudiced, will naturally construe everything they see and hear into evil, and will imagine evil where there is none. In this state, the Brotherton family came, and were something like spies, afraid to be spoken to by anyone, lest they should be ensnared, and especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith, less he should want their money. After remaining a short time here, they went back to Warsaw, where some of the greatest enemies reside, and, I am sorry to say, have joined in the general clamor and business of circulating evil reports, some of which I, myself, know positively to be false.” As mentioned in the video, Martha’s sister that stayed in Warsaw when her family moved briefly to Nauvoo claimed she never met the prophet Joseph while she lived in Warsaw (from the end of November 1841 through March of 1842). Given that, according to Clayton, Martha and her parents only lived a short time in Nauvoo and then went back to Warsaw, and, while in Nauvoo, they kept to themselves and were “especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith,” it’s not unrealistic to think that Martha might never have seen Joseph Smith after her solicitation by Brigham.
@@robfotheringham2289 I agree that she likely never had met Joseph. Employing an impersonator though, would carry great risk, unless the effort was meant to poison the well and not to convince the girl of nuptials.
@@robfotheringham2289 "it’s not unrealistic to think that Martha might never have seen Joseph Smith after her solicitation by Brigham" LOL. Martha testified that Brigham brought Joseph into the room to "gang up" on her to persuade her to plural marry Brigham: "brother Joseph wishes to have some talk with you on the subject-he will explain things-will you hear him?” “I do not mind,” said I. “Well, but I want you to say something,” said he. “I want time to think about it,” said I. “Well,” said he, “I will have a kiss, any how[”], and then rose, and said he would bring Joseph. He then unlocked the door, and took the key, and locked me up alone. "He was absent about ten minutes, and then returned with Joseph. “Well,” said Young, “sister Martha would be willing if she knew it was lawful and right before God.” “Well, Martha,” said Joseph, “it is lawful and right before God-I know it is. Look here, sis; don’t you believe in me?” I did not answer. “Well, Martha,” said Joseph, “just go ahead, and do as Brigham wants you to-he is the best man in the world, except me.” “O!” said Brigham, “then you are as good.” “Yes,” said Joseph. “Well,” said Young, “we believe Joseph to be a Prophet. I have known him near eight years, and always found him the same[”] “Yes,” said Joseph, “and I know that this is lawful and right before God, and if there is any sin in it, I will answer for it before God; and I have the keys of the kingdom, and whatever I bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever I loose on earth is loosed in heaven, and if you will accept of Brigham, you shall be blessed-God shall bless you, and my blessing shall rest upon you; and if you will be led by him, you will do well; for I know Brigham will take care of you, and if he don’t do his duty to you, come to me, and I will make him; and if you do not like it in a month or two, come to me, and I will make you free again; and if he turns you off, I will take you on.” End quote. If you don't believe Martha's account, you are calling the victim of sexual predators a liar.
@@PeterBrownscouts LOL. Martha testified that Brigham's attempt on her, in which he brought Joseph in to help persuade her, occurred in Joseph Smith's brick store. You seriously believe that Brigham Young somehow brought an impersonator into a building that wasn't his? And you think that Martha didn't know who Joseph was?
Holy Cow!!!! I have never seen this. I am freaking out. I had no clue the level of intrigue involved in this. Are you kidding me!!!! okay new journey. Totally freaking me out brother. Are there answers like this to all the wives of Joseph Smith...all of them? I want to know. Every one. It is at this point appropriate for me to state my position on polygamy. It can have a place a spiritual wholesome family life of consenting adults. Jehovah even labeled himself as a metaphorical polygamist with two wives in the OT...Joseph could have also known this and taught it and then....horny men ran with it against revelation and authorization. Just because there can be a time (circumstantial) that polygamy is authorized does not mean it is lawful to practice it anytime a man wants. I am now starting to see...that JS could have been set up. I have additional details regarding the associations of JS that would make this no an impossible undertaking. Wow....thank you for your hard work. I hope the rest of the research on this topic is just as revealing..and plausible. In other words the question has been moved from Can polygamy be a spiritual principle at certain times and beneficial to women in certain circumstances to and/or was Joseph Smith simply horny and wanting to have sex with a lot of women or ..Did men abuse a principal for their own ends (of course they did) etc...the truth is not even approached on either side....Im right your wrong it obvious I use reason you don't (nananananananana holding ears like a three year old). Even grown men can not discuss this and the real telling thing...they don't want to...wonder why? (because they are probably both wrong). Where's the logic, where is the reason? very rare..oh..like truth. What are the ramifications...well if it can be a wholesome and spiritual practice and was...Joseph Smith is the most prominent Christian leader to bring it forth..hmmm. a true testament after so much controversy. So the logic that shows that is very very scary. Now on the other side....the abuse of it is also horrible especially to the modern mind and its also abhorred so..we must keep it horrible right? got to otherwise some horny men will abuse it ..lol. Any details that clear this up are scary to minds that are so set, and so right they can not think otherwise...the proof...no serious discussions, ever. I have seen not one.
If you want to know if Rob Fotheringham's theory that Joseph Smith did not introduce polygamy into Mormonism is credible, I suggest that you read the following: On August 12, 1843---one month after Joseph Smith dictated the revelation on celestial marriage to his secretary, William Clayton---Hyrum Smith presented the document to the Nauvoo High Council to ask for their vote to sustain the document as church doctrine. Here is the result of that: "In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counsellor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws. And further deponent saith not. Legal affidavit of AUSTIN COWLES."---Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844. From LDS historian Richard van Wagoner: "It was not only lay members who were caught in this apparent web of deception; some church leaders were equally befuddled. During a 12 August meeting of the Nauvoo High Council, Dunbar Wilson 'made inquiry in relation to the subject of a plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those remarks, and he wanted to know what it was. Joseph Smith, who was ill, was not at that meeting. His brother Hyrum requested a short adjournment and crossed the street to his home, where he picked up his copy of the 12 July revelation. Thomas Grover, another member of the council, later testified that Hyrum read the document to the group and said: 'Now, you that believe this revelation and go forth and obey the same shall be saved, and you that reject it shall be damned.' But several prominent church leaders, including the prophet's second counselor William Law, Nauvoo stake president William Marks, and High Council members Leonard Soby and Austin A. Cowles could not see the hand of God in the revelation. "Law, a prominent Nauvoo businessman, was solidly devoted to Smith until mid-1843. During the Bennett scandal, he quickly came to Smith's defense, reassuring the Saints that Church leaders did not condone 'spiritual wifery' or any such behavior. Smith held his counselor in such high esteem that he included him in the first small group of male initiates to the endowment ceremony in May 1842. And Law rendered much moral and financial support to a discouraged Smith when Missouri officials were attempting to extradite him on the Boggs case. "'By early 1843, however, Law began to waver in his commitment to Smith. Initial difficulties between the two centered on business matters. . . .But a deeper source of the Laws' disaffection was their detestation of polygamy. In an 1887 interview William explained that Hyrum Smith had shown him the "revelation on celestial marriage" in the fall of 1843. "Hyrum gave it to me in his office," Law said, and "told me to take it home and read it. . . . He and Jane "were just turned upside down by it" . . . William took the document directly to the prophet and commented that it was in contradiction to the Doctrine and Covenants. Smith noted that the section on marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants was "given when the Church was in its infancy, when they were babes, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have some meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation," William wrote. "He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times in its favor.' ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 63-65) Also: "In early 1843 Austin [Cowles] . . . .played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young, guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles and Parley P. Pratt. These men--the Nauvoo Stake President, his First Counselor, and an eloquent Apostle--would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism. "Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent. "'Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12. Three of the leading Brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin Cowles and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also remarkable that Marks, Cowles and Soby would openly reject it. This was a watershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history. "Undoubtedly, Austin soon saw that he could not function as a Church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the High Council minutes, "President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Counselor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council." Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin "was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo." After resigning his presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place." . . . Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed President and selected Austin Cowles as his First Counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was "cut off" from the main LDS Church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the "Nauvoo Expositor," the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the "Expositor" press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that led to his martyrdom.' ("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Todd Compton, pp. 549-50) End quotes. Considering that six members of the Nauvoo High Council testified of the events during that meeting---and William Law wrote extensively in his journal of his efforts to persuade Smith to cease polygamy---and Law provided additional details of Smith's polygamy teachings and practice in his 1887 interview-----then it's futile to continue to assert that Joseph Smith did not originate polygamy in Mormonism.
@@randyjordan5521 there is numerous logical fallacies contained in the concepts regarding polygamy. The minds of each party quickly diverge into logical fallacies (controlled by connotation, denotation and perception) closely tied to personal hierarchal motivators (procreation and desire) that blind the mind. Polygamy can be, but not be for always. Polygamy can be by request of women for their own circumstance, Polygamy can strengthen a society and/or family and community....It can also be that monogamy is the standard (of course it is). Another logical fallacy...the revelation is altered, Brigham abused it , conspiracy and intrigue surround it therefore....Joseph was horny and its always an abomination. Way interesting. I rarely find a mind to discuss it thru with logic and reason...its the same ole same ole...cmonnnn mannnnn its obvious mannnnn...don't be a fool etc. Thats not logic and reason folks but hey....keep on keepin on.
@@peterhook2258 You can be pro-polygamy or anti-polygamy. The only thing I'm interested in discussing here are the historical facts. It is a FACT that the evidence that Joseph Smith originated polygamy in Mormonism began to be published during his lifetime, and is exhaustive. These people who want to believe that Smith didn't start polygamy are just in denial of the facts.
@@randyjordan5521 "starting polygamy" is full of connotative and denotative meaning. Its not really objective due to its ambiguity. Only once you identify an actual source document can you being a critical analysis. "Exhaustive Evidence" is the exact method of the gish gallop debating tactic and is well known by discrediting experts. Quality of evidence is key in actual academic and historical research. Also if we know the church is faulty in the interpretation and presentation of historical information, we certainly should not accept the interpretation or research into the documents but have the reviewed by experts for validity. We already know multiple alterations are made to history and scripture and primary source documents but...we are just going to accept them if they prove xyz ("started") . anyway some things to think about. Instead of a gish gallop method of coming to a conclusion why don't we identify some quality evidence? One piece. I'd like to see it. I will address them one at a time and admit if quality evidence implicates . I will honestly review your best shot. it will help me. but only one as I want to also show you how this gish galloping methodology works to discredit something. (google gish gallop debate tactic)
You know why they lied? Those “married/sealed” to Joseph Smith can’t be married to Brigham Young. The woman knew the lie Brigham created and used it against Brigham so they wouldn’t have to sin.
So, even if Joseph didn't practice polygamy you admit that the practice came about through manipulation and abusive use of power. It was still taught as "eternal doctrine" to the point of being canonized, and still tacitly accepted by the LDS church in how it handles men being sealed to multiple women after their previous wives pass away. Either way, it shows abuse by leadership of the church and a willingness to abuse the claim of divine power. All you have done is shift who precisely is to blame on this particular issue.
I see it like the same game as Constantine did. He took a pure and genuine faith and perverted it for his gain. Brigham and others did the same in our day. It is as important to know there was once a pure church in those days as to know there once was a pure church in our days. Lucifer, Mr. Light Bearer has always distorted what was given by God when men were unwilling to live what God gave them. We seem to always prefer darkness to light. Or at least we like the fake light of enlightenment of the small god of this world.
It matters because the doctrine taught by Joseph differs greatly compared to what Brigham taught and what we are taught now. Rob’s video on “Rejecting the fullness” explains some of this. The most important I think is the teachings of the first and second comforters. Joseph like Moses tried to help people prepare to see Christ. Today we and not encouraged and taught it isn’t a realistic event to seek out. That is how we gain eternal life. It’s not though marriage or polygamy. At least these are some conclusions I’ve reached so far in studying.
@@joshuaerickson8888 I am not an expert on things Constantine. But he made the Bishops into governors, ie politics and what the Catholic Church grew into. He picked and choose among dissenting voices and practices and created the orthodox religion that became Catholicism. Merged pagan beliefs with Christian. All the holidays are pagan that we consider Christian such as Christmas and Easter. Sabbath day changed to honor the Sun god. Priesthood changed, Baptism changed, Paid clergy changed, SEMIRAMIS and TAMMUZ replaced Mary and Jesus. The Catholic images are of these two thus the pushing of Mary ahead and the baby jesus. Worship of the sun and the light bearer or Lucifer. It all goes back to Babylon. The pagan gods by different names all go back to Babylon. Specifically Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. It is all Baal worship really. The obelisks at the Vatican (London and Washington too) are from Egypt and you can trace back from Egypt to Babylon.
I love your work... But wonder why you cling to Joseph? so many say... "Oh poor Joseph" and everyone else was corrupt around him. Why do you think that he wasn't involved in any of it? He selected all these scoundrels.
The answer to your question is obvious; it's because he is an evil lying apostate! Satan knows that if he had evil Rib to attack Joseph Smith himself that it wouldn't work! So, Satan gets him to attack the church, the other prophets, and the churches teachings!!! Just look at ALL if his videos and in every one he attacks just like U said!!!
Yeah, I think Martha could've met the prophet. William Marks, a very good man said JS admitted to him that he regretted practicing polygamy at the end. I'm still trying to figure it all out. Ther Nauvoo time period is a crazy insane mess!
Emily, In 1859 William Marks stated, “I feel desirous to communicate through your periodical a few suggestions made manifest to me by the Spirit of God, in relation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. About the first of June, 1844, (situated as I was at that time, being Presiding Elder of the Stake at Nauvoo, and by appointment the presiding officer of the High Council,) I had a very good opportunity to know the affairs of the church; and my convictions at that time were, that the church in a great measure had departed from the pure principles and doctrines of Jesus Christ. I felt much troubled in mind about the condition of the church. I prayed earnestly to my heavenly Father to show me something in regard to it, when I was wrapped in vision, and it was shown me by the Spirit that the top or branches had overcome the root, in sin and wickedness, and the only way to cleanse and purify it was to disorganize it and in due time the Lord would reorganize it again. There were many other things suggested to my mind, but the lapse of time has erased them from my memory. A few days after this occurrence I met with Brother Joseph. He said that he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the church, and we retired by ourselves. I will give his words verbatim, for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of polygamy. He said it eventually would prove the overthrow of the church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion made to put it down. He said that he would go before the Congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High Council, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression, and I must sever them from the church, unless they made ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but this was the substance. The mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few days after, therefore there was nothing done concerning it. After the Prophet’s death, I made mention of this conversation to several, hoping and believing that it would have a good effect; but to my great disappointment, it was soon rumored about that Brother Marks was about to apostatize, and that all that he said about the conversation with the Prophet was a tissue of lies.” (William Marks, Saints’ Herald, vol. 1, Oct. 23, 1859, Shabbona, DeKalb County, Illinois, pp.22-23; RLDS History of the Church 2:733). If one believes Joseph was a polygamist, it's possible to interpret Marks' words as confirmation Joseph practiced polygamy but decided to abandon it right before he was killed. By the same token, if one believes Joseph was not a polygamist, also it's possible to interpret his words as confirmation Joseph had decided to take formal steps to try to stamp out the nefarious practice he had always fought against. Interestingly, Marks' quote is similar to what William Smith, Joseph and Hyrum's brother who was an apostle in good standing when Joseph and Hyrum were killed, claimed Joseph said a few weeks before the martyrdom. In a letter to his nephew (who was Joseph and Emma's son), William Smith claimed, "I called on your father and took breakfast with him. While seated at the table a conversation was had participated in by your mother [Emma], concerning some things that she had learned in the discharge of her mission among the Saints as one of a committee appointed by the Female Relief Society, to visit the Saints and look after the interest of the poor of [the] Church; to enquire after their occupation and financial prospect for food and means of support. In relating her report she said, that some complaint had been made to her by females whom she had visited, that John Taylor, Willard Richards, and Brigham Young had been teaching some doctrines among the Saints privately that was going to ruin the Church, unless there was a stop put to it, as it was contrary to the law and rules governing the Church. Your father remarked that he would attend to the matter as soon as he got through with his troubles with the Laws and Fosters. But mark you their conversation took place only a few days previous to your father's death...One other point I wish to notice in the conversation that took place while I was eating at your father’s table, and that was, as the conversation turned upon Brigham Young, your father remarked that with regard to the charge brought against those brethren, that he expected that he would have trouble with Brigham Young, especially, and added that "should the time ever come that this man B. Young should lead the Church that he would lead it to hell."...These matters that I have thus named do not comprise the whole ground of the causes that led to your father’s death; although in part it did, as this secret evil that had crept into the Church, by means of this private teaching, gave food and material for the Expositor press to pour out its vials of wrath upon the head of the prophet, making him responsible for the conduct and teaching of these secret and clandestine teachers." (Source: From "A Proclamation" in the Warsaw Signal, Warsaw, Illinois, October 29, 1845) Also, there’s a reference I didn’t include in the video that may help explain my conclusion about Martha never meeting Joseph. Martha Brotherton’s sister explained that “My father only stayed nine weeks in the church after we came to Nauvoo.“ If by Nauvoo she meant the Nauvoo area including Warsaw, then Martha’s father would have left the church by January 27 of 1842, which aligns with a letter Joseph Fielding wrote to England that same month (January 1842) warning “some will send home an evil report, such as brother B. from Macclesfield,” referencing Martha’s father. The source I mentioned comes from a letter written in Nauvoo by William Clayton on March 30, 1842, referencing the Brothertons’ allegations making their way back to England. Clayton wrote, “you say you are almost wearied with the lies, etc. This is what we must expect in these days for this is a lying and wicked generation even many in whom we have a great confidence, when we see them brought into trial, give way to an evil spirit. Old Mr. B-, and daughter, like many others, were assailed by the apostate crews, who they scattered on the banks of the river; and all manner of evil reports were sounded in their ears, after they became discouraged; and, finally, almost denied the faith before they came near Nauvoo. People coming here with their minds thus prejudiced, will naturally construe everything they see and hear into evil, and will imagine evil where there is none. In this state, the Brotherton family came, and were something like spies, afraid to be spoken to by anyone, lest they should be ensnared, and especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith, less he should want their money. After remaining a short time here, they went back to Warsaw, where some of the greatest enemies reside, and, I am sorry to say, have joined in the general clamor and business of circulating evil reports, some of which I, myself, know positively to be false.” As mentioned in the video, Martha’s sister that stayed in Warsaw when her family moved briefly to Nauvoo claimed she never met the prophet Joseph while she lived in Warsaw (from the end of November 1841 through March of 1842). Given that, according to Clayton, Martha and her parents only lived a short time in Nauvoo and then went back to Warsaw, and, while in Nauvoo, they kept to themselves and were “especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith,” it’s not unrealistic to think that Martha might never have seen Joseph Smith after her solicitation by Brigham.
@@robfotheringham2289 This phrase from Martha's sister is interesting: "...lest they should be ensnared, and especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith, less he should want their money." Why do you think that this would have been a concern for the Brotheringtons? Additionally, William was caught up with polygamy before his 1845 statement in the Warsaw Signal suggesting Joseph wanted to root polygamy out of the church. Why do you suppose that William would have said that, considering he, himself was practising it? I have a document from Yale printed in 1844 that shows this is the case, if you are interested in seeing it.
Joseph is a proven Liar. The church admits as much in the Gospel Topics Essays. Why wouldn't you believe the church? If Joseph actually practiced Polygamy, would it affect your faith?
The church lies all the time to protect their "good name." Why would you believe anything they say about polygamy considering if Joseph didn't practice it, that would blow I gigantic hole in their claim of authority?
I love the circular logic here: - The LDS Church lies - The LDS Church says that Joseph was a liar - Because Joseph was a liar, the LDS Church is false - Because the LDS Church is false, the LDS Church lies. You rely on the same organization you decry as deceitful for evidence that Joseph was a liar. 9/10 mental gymnastics!
THE CHURCH is the proven liar. There is NO proof that Joseph was a liar about anything and MOUNTAINS of evidence that Brigham and his MANY cohorts and minions (who started the church we know as the LDS/Mormons today) were total liars, adulterers, fornicators, and even murderers.
@@newmommy1010 I feel sorry for you that you were lied to by people that you should have been able to trust. But the church has shown a consistent pattern of dishonesty since the moment it began.
Rob, I have been mightily impressed with your videos. Your research is fascinating and I agree with every conclusion I have heard you utter so far. I was born in 1957, and raised in SLC. I spent the first 55 years of my life immersed deeply in Mormon culture. I served a mission, married in the temple, and was fully active in church including numerous leadership positions including bishop and stake high councilman.
A series of events led to a crisis in my life and for the first time in my life I began to question many of the dogmas I had accepted my whole life. I began a period of introspection and study and prayer for clarity of understanding. I began a search for truth - not what I had been taught was truth, but what I could discern was truth based on my own wisdom after a lifetime of experience. In the many years of my deep immersion in church life, I had often questioned accepted doctrines and beliefs, and I had often dismissed what I considered to be “Mormon mythology”, but I had brushed it away from my mind somehow realizing that to spend time seriously thinking about some things would put me on a path that could put me on the path leading to “apostasy” which was a dark path that would lead me down to the devil.
Now, I consider myself a searcher. I search for truth. I have learned that the truth will set me free. I feel that I have been hiking up a mountain, and that suddenly I have emerged from the fog that enshrouded me before, and I can see a vista I was unable to see before. My search for more truth and understanding has led me to sources of truth such as yourself. I appreciate your hard work and your dedication to discovering the truth about the history of the church that molded who we are and how we were molded as young men and women in the church that was such an overwhelming influence on our lives.
I hunger for your insight. I look at my subscriptions in my RUclips app often hoping to see something new from you. You bring light to those of us who are on a journey of discovery. I’m sure I speak for many who sincerely thank you for your courage and your dedication to your work. I hope you realize how much we all support you and thank God for your commitment to your mission.
Frank...read the New testament. You will find answers to almost all of your questions. I find most LDS have never read it.
@@DKMELT Most haven’t read the Book of Mormon so to say they haven’t read the NT is an understatement. However those who’ve served in the roles he has are generally well versed. The truth however won’t be found in the NT it’s nothing more than Roman propaganda and mythology. The Greco Roman influence on the creation of Jesus is the greatest hoax ever played on mankind.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am working through much the same things. I am not sure what Melton is going on about with New Testament comment. I guess he is hoping you will give up Joseph and the BOM and follow the born again movement. As if. I know Joseph was a prophet and the BOM is the word of God. Brigham and the others poisoned the well, the tares always grow up with the wheat, or choke it off. Thanks for your thoughts on your journey.
@@FleeingBabylon-Now
Rick,
In my search, my greatest answers have come to me while studying the Book of Mormon. I agree that Brigham Young and many of his like minded supporters and successors bastardized the church government and used the words of the prophet Joseph Smith to their own selfish purposes and introduced darkness and secrecy into the church for wicked reasons. Shedding light and truth through honest study and research of history as Rob Fotheringham is doing helps us shed the scales from our eyes and see that the true gospel as revealed to Joseph is not a gospel of secrecy (secret combinations) and darkness, but light and truth. The truth shall set us free. My search for truth has made me stronger, and has made my relationship with my Father in Heaven more honest.
@@DKMELT
Melton, I have read the New Testament. I have learned and profited much from the NT, but I have profited even more from my study of the Book of Mormon.
Thanks
Rob, I really love your work. I’m so glad you are making it available again. I sure wish Matt from Mormon Rescue would make his information available again. Accurate information is certainly valuable in today’s time.
I'm fairly certain Matt was threatened with his membership and decided to pull it. I also really liked his work.
I just checked and Mormon rescue channel is operational. I haven’t heard of this guy but I’m going to check him out. He has videos as recent as three days ago
You’re the bomb, Rob! Please never stop. Your research blesses so many of us! I will stand with you.
Rob, would you consider doing a deep dive on the temple endowment, how much of what we currently have can be traced back to Joseph Smith and what was added or changed by Brigham Young or those that came afterwards? Thanks.
I too would love more info regarding the current temple endowment.
Thank you again for not just your hard work and dedication but also for making it available for the rest of us!!! You have an amazing gift!
I was wondering the same thing. There have been so many dramatic changes since I received my endowment in 1976, and I wonder how much was introduced by BY and what was actually given by JS.
None of the endowment was introduced by Joseph. They didn’t do endowments in the Kirtland temple and the Nauvoo temple was never finished
@@zacdavis8234I'm beginning to believe this is the correct answer.
The biggest reason to doubt the happiness letter I think is that Joseph and Sidney talked about it and Sidney thought it wasn't Joseph. If my daughter had been propositioned like this then I wouldn't rest unless I was 100% satisfied. Sidney also was very much against polygamy.
LDS historian Richard van Wagoner wrote this:
"Nancy's brother John, recounting the incident years later in an affidavit,
remembered that 'Nancy refused him, saying if she ever got married she would
marry a single man or none at all, and took her bonnet and went home, leaving
Joseph.' Nancy withheld details of the situation from her family until a day
or two later, when a letter from Smith was delivered by Smith's personal
secretary, Willard Richards. 'Happiness is the object and design of our
existence,' the letter began. 'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may
be, and often is, right under another.' The letter went on to teach that
'whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see
the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.....'
"Nancy showed Smith's letter to her father and told him of the incident at the
Hyde residence. Rigdon demanded an audience with Smith. George W. Robinson
reported that when Smith came to Rigdon's home, the enraged father asked for an
explanation.....[After which the confrontation of which Robinson wrote, quoted
above, ensued.] "Much later, John Rigdon elaborated that 'Nancy was one of
those excitable women and she went into the room and said Joseph Smith you are
telling that which is not true you did make such a proposition to me and you
know it.'
"Robinson wrote that Smith, after acknowledging the incident, claimed he had
propositioned Nancy because he 'wished to ascertain whether she was virtuous or
not, and took that course to learn the facts!' But the Rigdon family would not
accept such an explanation. They were persuaded that the rumors about the
prophet's polygamy doctrine had been confirmed. The issue continued to be a
serious source of contention between the two church leaders until Smith's death
in 1844. According to John Rigdon, Sidney told the family that Smith 'could
never be sealed to one of his daughters with his consent as he did not believe
in the doctrine.' Rigdon preferred to keep his difficulties with Smith
private, but Bennett's detailed disclosures made this impossible.
"A Mormon newspaper, 'The Wasp,' printed on July 20 a number of sworn
statements by prominent Nauvoo citizens affirming Joseph Smith's 'high moral
character' and declaring him not guilty of any of Bennett's published
accusations. Orson Pratt would not sign the letter, nor would Sidney Rigdon or
George W. Robinson."
("Mormon Polygamy: A History," pp. 32-33.)
It is speculated that Sidney declined to publicly denounce Smith over that incident because he feared that it might bring down the whole church and himself along with it. Although Smith survived that scandal, polygamy led directly to his death two years later.
Thanks Rob
Your research has brought truth to light that has been hidden far too long. Kncow that your effors are appreciated by many and as always your information is well documented.
So Apparently Augusta Adams Cobb was like a Ghislaine Maxwell for BY and HCK!
And Vilate Kimball.
Perfect comparison.
As were Sylvia Sessions and Elizabeth Durfee for Joseph Smith:
"Joe had in his employ certain old women, called "Mothers in Israel," such as Mrs. Tailor, old Madam Durfee, and old Madam Sessions, in whom the people have great confidence, but in fact, they are the most depraved hypocrits on Earth. If Joe wishes to make a spiritual wife of a certain young lady, he would send one of these women to her. The old women, would tell the young lady, that she had had a vision, in which it was revealed to her that she was to be sealed up to Joe, (or his friend as the case might be) as a spiritual wife, to be his in time and eternity. This would astonish the young innocent, but scripture would soon be resorted to, to prove the correctness of the doctrine, and that it was proper in the sight of the Lord. Soon after this Joe would appear, and tell the lady that the Lord had revealed to him that Mrs. so & so, had had a vision concerning her, and had been to see her. Not suspecting any collusion the young lady would be astonished, and being strong in the faith, she could have no doubt but that Joe spoke by authority of God, He would then ply his arguments, and with the utmost sanctity speak "in the name of the Lord" and say that at such a time, and at such a place it had been revealed to him that she should be his or his friend's, in time and eternity. If she objected he would quote his scripture and his revelations, and thus by playing on her superstitious credulity, and artfully at the same time inflaming her passions he seldom failed of his object. Being once successful, he held the fear of exposure over her as a rod to prevent rebellion from his allegiance. When, as happened in the cases of Miss Martha Brotherton and Miss Nancy Rigdon, his overtures were rejected with disdain and exposure threatened he would set a hundred hell hounds on them, to destroy their reputations. This was a specimen of the mode and manner of Joe in carrying his vile measures of seduction."
---Joseph H. Jackson, August 1844.
@@randyjordan5521 Don't you find it a little odd that every accusation against Joseph came after he was dead and couldn't defend himself?
@@icecreamladydriver1606 LOL. That is utterly false. You obviously know very little about this subject. The first accusations of Joseph practicing polygamy came in 1842, two years before his death. The "Nauvoo Expositor" newspaper, which exposed more details about Joseph's polygamy practice, was published 20 days before his death. In fact, Joseph's illegal order to have the paper's printing press destroyed set off the chain of events that led to his death.
The reason I quoted this passage from Joseph H. Jackson's narrative is because he was a close aide to Joseph Smith for almost two years, working alongside him and interacting with other high-ranking church leaders and women. Jackson actually wrote his narrative before Smith's death, but it was not published until a few weeks later. But it's obvious that his account is credible because he could not have known the names of so many church insiders and other details about happenings in Nauvoo if he didn't personally experience it.
I recommend that you study an issue before you try to offer opinions on it.
You're doing important work. Thank you.
Thank you for your time to make these videos. Helps me feel less alone in this journey. ♡
You are doing a great job, Rob. These videos are a breath of fresh air. Keep going!
Thank you for the great work you do. It's one of those cases where the feelings that rise in me are opposite to the reaction; because It just makes me smile - in desperation. However even if it is after 44 years, I'm awake now and must try to personally find God. Thank you again for a work I couldn't do.
I have loved these articulate and well researched videos, thank you. I am starving for more of the authentic truth, but am discriminating the sources, since the pendulum swings both ways. I am so glad to find your videos. I especially appreciate your approach to include testimonies of the women who would not consent.
As I compare and contrast the journal entries of the women who did; and the women who didn’t enter polygamy, I find it comes down to two groups. This may be an oversimplification, but it seems that there will always be groups that can be more easily persuaded using ‘secrecy’ and then there is The other group, that just won’t partake in anything that is not out right front and center. Truth is always self evident and doesn’t need secrecy or covenants to “ lie for the Lord”. 🙏❤️🇺🇸
Yep, polygamy shows us the difference between women who would accept anything that their religious leader commands, even if it involves adultery, and the women who are wise and virtuous enough to reject it. It illustrates the danger of following any religious leader who claims to speak directly for God. And then there were women like Sarah Pratt, who endured living in polygamy for years, but then finally divorced her husband Orson and condemned the practice.
Rob I don’t know how this is not catapulted straight to the top, so we can be a more United, perfect church, repent and move forward. Outstanding!
They ex’d him for the truths he shares. They have rejected the truth to save face and keep their house of cards standing.
@@jennedge123 If the LDS church didn't ex Rob because his views oppose church leaders, they could have ex'ed him for publishing material that is demonstrably false.
Always look forward to your videos. Thank you for the great work you’re doing 🙏
Thanks for all the research you do to make your videos, so enlightening!
Augusta Adams Cobb= Ghislaine Maxwell.
Change my mind 😬
Joseph Smith = Jeffery Epstein Change my mind
Mic drop!
There it is, the Masonry connection I've been independently researching 10:48. The temple ceremony as we've been taught is NOT of God. But of the little god. Only he works in secrets under penalty of death.
Great work as always Rob 🙌
If you're interested in the connections between Mormonism and Masonry, I suggest you read "Is there no hope for the widow's son?" by Dr. Reed Durham. It's on-line.
@@randyjordan5521 thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.
Well researched once again. Thank you!
I have never heard Catherine Lewis's story until now. I really appreciate you bringing it to the forefront!
This is sooo important! Thanks, Rob!
Thank you. Your hard work is helping me with my questions on the Happiness letter. Time to do more praying. I really appreciate your work.
I have a hard time taking Proceedings of the Mormons at face value. Certainly, there is some truth however I wouldn't base an academic argument on it.
It is a sensationalized account with a lot of statements that are not provable.
Reading through the whole thing, it also strikes me as kind of a mixed bag. The parts involving her personal experience seem credible, but the bits about "training the Indians," etc., seem like sensationalism passed on from John C. Bennett or something.
Thank you
Rob,
Great video, but please speak up. I cannot hear you even with the volume at the highest level.
Rob: Didn’t you have an episode on the development of the Word of Wisdom? I really enjoyed it and wanted for watch it again.
The Word of Wisdom is covered in the first 24 minutes of ruclips.net/video/cZMxMjHPF7Q/видео.html
If it was okay to lie when you were discovered, then wouldn't it be okay for Joseph to lie when he was publicly talking about it?
The fact that Joseph, Hyrum and Samuel were killed by the followers of polygamy gang would make it certain that Joseph was not lying and they were. The devil does not kill his own when they are in league with him, at least not until they have no use for him anymore.
@@FleeingBabylon-Now The LDS narrative is they were killed by the mob.
@@FleeingBabylon-Now No Mormons had anything to do with the Smith's murders. That is just a wild conspiracy theory. The men who killed the Smiths are well-known and went to trial. They included Warsaw Signal editor Thomas Sharp, militia leaders Levi Williams and Mark Aldrich. I suggest you read an article on-line titled "Meet the Defendants in the Carthage Conspiracy Trial."
The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that Joseph Smith originated polygamy in Mormonism and lied about it. Some people just don't want to believe the evidence because they worship Joseph Smith.
@@randyjordan5521 you are free to believe that without proof. The same LDS got Joseph into Liberty Jail as well. They just did not succeed in killing him there. Right hand Brutus
@@FleeingBabylon-Now LOL. What you're telling me is that you didn't read the article I cited. Instead of continuing to show your ignorance, I suggest you educate yourself on the subject.
In a June 11, 1844 editorial in his newspaper, the "Warsaw Signal"---16 days before the Smiths were killed by a vigilante mob---Thomas Sharp wrote of Joseph Smith's destruction of the "Nauvoo Expositor" printing press:
"War and extermination is inevitable! Citizens ARISE, ONE and ALL!!!-Can you stand by, and suffer such INFERNAL DEVILS! to ROB men of their property and RIGHTS, without avenging them. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!!"
Maybe you can use your sleuthing skills to deduce from this statement who was behind the Smith's killings.
Russell m Nelson said that the Lord will preform some of his mightiest works between now and when he comes again.. this work and bring the saints to a knowledge of the truth is part of his prophecy.. I am currently active and hold positions in my ward.. before I was converted to the Lord I have seen and done alot of bad things before I became active member .. but the Brigham young and his secret works are evil. It even smells of evil.. I hope I haven’t offended anyone With this reference.. love your videos.. thank you
I too am very active and will never leave the church. I love the gospel, I'm grateful for our leaders and so glad we have some foundation to get us through these last days. I also have a firm testimony in temple work and have had some amazing experiences.
I will say...polygamy never bore good fruit. How can God command chastity for some, not for others, total fidelity for some, not for others, one heart and one mind with your spouse for some, not for others. That would make God a changing God and a liar. Over the years one thing I've noticed... the polygamy stories are never consistent. They change all the time. If it was real revelation we'd have the same story over and over but they've never been consistent. I'm grateful the truth is finally coming out, it actually strengthens my testimony to know God is still who he says he is and a good reminder that Brigham Young isn't nor was he ever God. Too many members refuse to question his integrity.
Do you think it's feasible or likely that BY and HCK would have used someone to impersonate JS when it would have been very easy for Martha to eventually meet JS in person and could then divulge the deception to others. It seems like a really big risk. ???
I don't believe so. I think it is more likely that they did what John C. Bennett had done previously and told Martha that Joseph sanctioned it and that it came from him. Martha being so disgusted by the whole thing could have made up the part of Joseph coming in, to implicate him as she believed what she had been told, that it came from him. Even more likely is that, that part of the story could have come from John C. Bennett who also claimed that he was locked in a room by Joseph. It was proven by non-mormons that his claim was false. It was Bennett who solicited the affidavit from Martha and published it.
It is also possible that they presented polygamy to Martha and then had Joseph come in and talk about marriage, having no idea what she had previously been told. And she just thought they were all talking about the same thing. What we know for sure is that Brigham and Heber were proficient liars and manipulators and that Joseph was very trusting and nieve. It would have been very easy for the above scenerio to have played out. That is also what could have happened with Helen Mar Kimball. Her father presented polygamy to her told her he wanted their families tied together, then had JOseph come over to explain the importance of marriage to her and she just assumed he was talking about the same thing her father had just introduced to her. Heber may have even asked Joseph to show his daughter what a marriage ceremony was like by putting on a pretend one that she believed was real.
I'm not with you on the fake Joseph thing. Even if she hadn't seen Joseph Smith, she eventually WOULD have, and that risk would make it difficult for the Apostles to overcome. I'm more in line with the idea that she was propositioned by Brigham and Heber, but that when she came into Bennet's orbit, Bennet sold her on the idea that Joseph needed to be implicated to make the story more credible. The dialogue between Smith and Brotherton seems fake, almost as if Bennet's voice is there and altered Brotherton's affidavit with her permission.
Brotherton, Rigdon, and Sarah Pratt were connected with Bennet and his attempts to smear Joseph. Once Bennet was fully out of the picture, we don't have any more of these scorned women who run and tell tales, usually through Bennet. The strategy shifted from Bennet flaming Joseph publicly to the Apostles framing Joseph privately. I think that makes sense if they knew his days were numbered.
The Bennett scenario you describe seems plausible. There’s a reference I didn’t include in the video that may help explain my conclusion. Martha Brotherton’s sister explained that “My father only stayed nine weeks in the church after we came to Nauvoo.“ If by Nauvoo she meant the Nauvoo area including Warsaw, then Martha’s father would have left the church by January 27 of 1842, which aligns with a letter Joseph Fielding wrote to England that same month (January 1842) warning “some will send home an evil report, such as brother B. from Macclesfield,” referencing Martha’s father. The source I mentioned comes from a letter written in Nauvoo by William Clayton on March 30, 1842, referencing the Brothertons’ allegations making their way back to England. Clayton wrote, “you say you are almost wearied with the lies, etc. This is what we must expect in these days for this is a lying and wicked generation even many in whom we have a great confidence, when we see them brought into trial, give way to an evil spirit. Old Mr. B-, and daughter, like many others, were assailed by the apostate crews, who they scattered on the banks of the river; and all manner of evil reports were sounded in their ears, after they became discouraged; and, finally, almost denied the faith before they came near Nauvoo. People coming here with their minds thus prejudiced, will naturally construe everything they see and hear into evil, and will imagine evil where there is none. In this state, the Brotherton family came, and were something like spies, afraid to be spoken to by anyone, lest they should be ensnared, and especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith, less he should want their money. After remaining a short time here, they went back to Warsaw, where some of the greatest enemies reside, and, I am sorry to say, have joined in the general clamor and business of circulating evil reports, some of which I, myself, know positively to be false.”
As mentioned in the video, Martha’s sister that stayed in Warsaw when her family moved briefly to Nauvoo claimed she never met the prophet Joseph while she lived in Warsaw (from the end of November 1841 through March of 1842). Given that, according to Clayton, Martha and her parents only lived a short time in Nauvoo and then went back to Warsaw, and, while in Nauvoo, they kept to themselves and were “especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith,” it’s not unrealistic to think that Martha might never have seen Joseph Smith after her solicitation by Brigham.
@@robfotheringham2289 I agree that she likely never had met Joseph. Employing an impersonator though, would carry great risk, unless the effort was meant to poison the well and not to convince the girl of nuptials.
@@robfotheringham2289 "it’s not unrealistic to think that Martha might never have seen Joseph Smith after her solicitation by Brigham"
LOL. Martha testified that Brigham brought Joseph into the room to "gang up" on her to persuade her to plural marry Brigham:
"brother Joseph wishes to have some talk with you on the subject-he will explain things-will you hear him?” “I do not mind,” said I. “Well, but I want you to say something,” said he. “I want time to think about it,” said I. “Well,” said he, “I will have a kiss, any how[”], and then rose, and said he would bring Joseph. He then unlocked the door, and took the key, and locked me up alone.
"He was absent about ten minutes, and then returned with Joseph. “Well,” said Young, “sister Martha would be willing if she knew it was lawful and right before God.” “Well, Martha,” said Joseph, “it is lawful and right before God-I know it is. Look here, sis; don’t you believe in me?” I did not answer. “Well, Martha,” said Joseph, “just go ahead, and do as Brigham wants you to-he is the best man in the world, except me.” “O!” said Brigham, “then you are as good.” “Yes,” said Joseph. “Well,” said Young, “we believe Joseph to be a Prophet. I have known him near eight years, and always found him the same[”] “Yes,” said Joseph, “and I know that this is lawful and right before God, and if there is any sin in it, I will answer for it before God; and I have the keys of the kingdom, and whatever I bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever I loose on earth is loosed in heaven, and if you will accept of Brigham, you shall be blessed-God shall bless you, and my blessing shall rest upon you; and if you will be led by him, you will do well; for I know Brigham will take care of you, and if he don’t do his duty to you, come to me, and I will make him; and if you do not like it in a month or two, come to me, and I will make you free again; and if he turns you off, I will take you on.”
End quote. If you don't believe Martha's account, you are calling the victim of sexual predators a liar.
@@PeterBrownscouts LOL. Martha testified that Brigham's attempt on her, in which he brought Joseph in to help persuade her, occurred in Joseph Smith's brick store. You seriously believe that Brigham Young somehow brought an impersonator into a building that wasn't his? And you think that Martha didn't know who Joseph was?
Holy Cow!!!! I have never seen this. I am freaking out. I had no clue the level of intrigue involved in this. Are you kidding me!!!! okay new journey. Totally freaking me out brother. Are there answers like this to all the wives of Joseph Smith...all of them? I want to know. Every one. It is at this point appropriate for me to state my position on polygamy. It can have a place a spiritual wholesome family life of consenting adults. Jehovah even labeled himself as a metaphorical polygamist with two wives in the OT...Joseph could have also known this and taught it and then....horny men ran with it against revelation and authorization. Just because there can be a time (circumstantial) that polygamy is authorized does not mean it is lawful to practice it anytime a man wants. I am now starting to see...that JS could have been set up. I have additional details regarding the associations of JS that would make this no an impossible undertaking. Wow....thank you for your hard work. I hope the rest of the research on this topic is just as revealing..and plausible. In other words the question has been moved from Can polygamy be a spiritual principle at certain times and beneficial to women in certain circumstances to and/or was Joseph Smith simply horny and wanting to have sex with a lot of women or ..Did men abuse a principal for their own ends (of course they did) etc...the truth is not even approached on either side....Im right your wrong it obvious I use reason you don't (nananananananana holding ears like a three year old). Even grown men can not discuss this and the real telling thing...they don't want to...wonder why? (because they are probably both wrong). Where's the logic, where is the reason? very rare..oh..like truth. What are the ramifications...well if it can be a wholesome and spiritual practice and was...Joseph Smith is the most prominent Christian leader to bring it forth..hmmm. a true testament after so much controversy. So the logic that shows that is very very scary. Now on the other side....the abuse of it is also horrible especially to the modern mind and its also abhorred so..we must keep it horrible right? got to otherwise some horny men will abuse it ..lol. Any details that clear this up are scary to minds that are so set, and so right they can not think otherwise...the proof...no serious discussions, ever. I have seen not one.
If you want to know if Rob Fotheringham's theory that Joseph Smith did not introduce polygamy into Mormonism is credible, I suggest that you read the following:
On August 12, 1843---one month after Joseph Smith dictated the revelation on celestial marriage to his secretary, William Clayton---Hyrum Smith presented the document to the Nauvoo High Council to ask for their vote to sustain the document as church doctrine. Here is the result of that:
"In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counsellor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws. And further deponent saith not.
Legal affidavit of AUSTIN COWLES."---Nauvoo Expositor, June 7, 1844.
From LDS historian Richard van Wagoner:
"It was not only lay members who were caught in this apparent web of deception; some church leaders were equally befuddled. During a 12 August meeting of the Nauvoo High Council, Dunbar Wilson 'made inquiry in relation to the subject of a plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those remarks, and he wanted to know what it was. Joseph Smith, who was ill, was not at that meeting. His brother Hyrum requested a short adjournment and crossed the street to his home, where he picked up his copy of the 12 July revelation. Thomas Grover, another member of the council, later testified that Hyrum read the document to the group and said: 'Now, you that believe this revelation and go forth and obey the same shall be saved, and you that reject it shall be damned.' But several prominent church leaders, including the prophet's second counselor William Law, Nauvoo stake president William Marks, and High Council members Leonard Soby and Austin A. Cowles could not see the hand of God in the revelation.
"Law, a prominent Nauvoo businessman, was solidly devoted to Smith until mid-1843. During the Bennett scandal, he quickly came to Smith's defense, reassuring the Saints that Church leaders did not condone 'spiritual wifery' or any such behavior. Smith held his counselor in such high esteem that he included him in the first small group of male initiates to the endowment ceremony in May 1842. And Law rendered much moral and financial support to a discouraged Smith when Missouri officials were attempting to extradite him on the Boggs case.
"'By early 1843, however, Law began to waver in his commitment to Smith. Initial difficulties between the two centered on business matters. . . .But a deeper source of the Laws' disaffection was their detestation of polygamy. In an 1887 interview William explained that Hyrum Smith had shown him the "revelation on celestial marriage" in the fall of 1843. "Hyrum gave it to me in his office," Law said, and "told me to take it home and read it. . . . He and Jane "were just turned upside down by it" . . . William took the document directly to the prophet and commented that it was in contradiction to the Doctrine and Covenants. Smith noted that the section on marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants was "given when the Church was in its infancy, when they were babes, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have some meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation," William wrote. "He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times in its favor.' ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 63-65)
Also:
"In early 1843 Austin [Cowles] . . . .played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young,
guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles and Parley P. Pratt. These men--the Nauvoo Stake President, his First Counselor, and an eloquent Apostle--would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism.
"Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent.
"'Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12. Three of the leading Brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin
Cowles and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also remarkable that Marks, Cowles and Soby would openly reject it. This was a watershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history.
"Undoubtedly, Austin soon saw that he could not function as a Church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the High Council minutes, "President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Counselor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council." Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin "was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo." After resigning his presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place." . . . Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed President and selected Austin Cowles as his First Counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was "cut off" from the main LDS Church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the "Nauvoo Expositor," the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the "Expositor" press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that
led to his martyrdom.' ("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Todd Compton, pp. 549-50)
End quotes. Considering that six members of the Nauvoo High Council testified of the events during that meeting---and William Law wrote extensively in his journal of his efforts to persuade Smith to cease polygamy---and Law provided additional details of Smith's polygamy teachings and practice in his 1887 interview-----then it's futile to continue to assert that Joseph Smith did not originate polygamy in Mormonism.
@@randyjordan5521 there is numerous logical fallacies contained in the concepts regarding polygamy. The minds of each party quickly diverge into logical fallacies (controlled by connotation, denotation and perception) closely tied to personal hierarchal motivators (procreation and desire) that blind the mind. Polygamy can be, but not be for always. Polygamy can be by request of women for their own circumstance, Polygamy can strengthen a society and/or family and community....It can also be that monogamy is the standard (of course it is). Another logical fallacy...the revelation is altered, Brigham abused it , conspiracy and intrigue surround it therefore....Joseph was horny and its always an abomination. Way interesting. I rarely find a mind to discuss it thru with logic and reason...its the same ole same ole...cmonnnn mannnnn its obvious mannnnn...don't be a fool etc. Thats not logic and reason folks but hey....keep on keepin on.
@@peterhook2258 You can be pro-polygamy or anti-polygamy. The only thing I'm interested in discussing here are the historical facts. It is a FACT that the evidence that Joseph Smith originated polygamy in Mormonism began to be published during his lifetime, and is exhaustive. These people who want to believe that Smith didn't start polygamy are just in denial of the facts.
@@randyjordan5521 "starting polygamy" is full of connotative and denotative meaning. Its not really objective due to its ambiguity. Only once you identify an actual source document can you being a critical analysis. "Exhaustive Evidence" is the exact method of the gish gallop debating tactic and is well known by discrediting experts. Quality of evidence is key in actual academic and historical research. Also if we know the church is faulty in the interpretation and presentation of historical information, we certainly should not accept the interpretation or research into the documents but have the reviewed by experts for validity. We already know multiple alterations are made to history and scripture and primary source documents but...we are just going to accept them if they prove xyz ("started") . anyway some things to think about. Instead of a gish gallop method of coming to a conclusion why don't we identify some quality evidence? One piece. I'd like to see it. I will address them one at a time and admit if quality evidence implicates . I will honestly review your best shot. it will help me. but only one as I want to also show you how this gish galloping methodology works to discredit something. (google gish gallop debate tactic)
@@peterhook2258 What you've written here tells us that you know zero about the subject.
You know why they lied? Those “married/sealed” to Joseph Smith can’t be married to Brigham Young. The woman knew the lie Brigham created and used it against Brigham so they wouldn’t have to sin.
So, even if Joseph didn't practice polygamy you admit that the practice came about through manipulation and abusive use of power. It was still taught as "eternal doctrine" to the point of being canonized, and still tacitly accepted by the LDS church in how it handles men being sealed to multiple women after their previous wives pass away. Either way, it shows abuse by leadership of the church and a willingness to abuse the claim of divine power. All you have done is shift who precisely is to blame on this particular issue.
I see it like the same game as Constantine did. He took a pure and genuine faith and perverted it for his gain. Brigham and others did the same in our day. It is as important to know there was once a pure church in those days as to know there once was a pure church in our days. Lucifer, Mr. Light Bearer has always distorted what was given by God when men were unwilling to live what God gave them. We seem to always prefer darkness to light. Or at least we like the fake light of enlightenment of the small god of this world.
It matters because the doctrine taught by Joseph differs greatly compared to what Brigham taught and what we are taught now. Rob’s video on “Rejecting the fullness” explains some of this. The most important I think is the teachings of the first and second comforters. Joseph like Moses tried to help people prepare to see Christ. Today we and not encouraged and taught it isn’t a realistic event to seek out. That is how we gain eternal life. It’s not though marriage or polygamy. At least these are some conclusions I’ve reached so far in studying.
Yes. He cleared up the confusion on who is to blame, and made it easier to sift out the truth from their lies.
@@FleeingBabylon-Now It would be good to know what changes Constantine made, so that those changes can be undone. Do you know what was changed by him?
@@joshuaerickson8888 I am not an expert on things Constantine. But he made the Bishops into governors, ie politics and what the Catholic Church grew into. He picked and choose among dissenting voices and practices and created the orthodox religion that became Catholicism. Merged pagan beliefs with Christian. All the holidays are pagan that we consider Christian such as Christmas and Easter. Sabbath day changed to honor the Sun god. Priesthood changed, Baptism changed, Paid clergy changed, SEMIRAMIS and TAMMUZ replaced Mary and Jesus. The Catholic images are of these two thus the pushing of Mary ahead and the baby jesus. Worship of the sun and the light bearer or Lucifer. It all goes back to Babylon. The pagan gods by different names all go back to Babylon. Specifically Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. It is all Baal worship really. The obelisks at the Vatican (London and Washington too) are from Egypt and you can trace back from Egypt to Babylon.
So what was the wording that indicated that Bennett eluded to someone impersonating JS to Martha Brotherton?
I love your work... But wonder why you cling to Joseph? so many say... "Oh poor Joseph" and everyone else was corrupt around him. Why do you think that he wasn't involved in any of it? He selected all these scoundrels.
The answer to your question is obvious; it's because he is an evil lying apostate! Satan knows that if he had evil Rib to attack Joseph Smith himself that it wouldn't work! So, Satan gets him to attack the church, the other prophets, and the churches teachings!!! Just look at ALL if his videos and in every one he attacks just like U said!!!
@@GeorgeDemetzso you prefer that Joesph was a pathological liar and pedophile? Checks out.
This one feels like a bit of a stretch
What do you mean?
Yeah, I think Martha could've met the prophet. William Marks, a very good man said JS admitted to him that he regretted practicing polygamy at the end. I'm still trying to figure it all out. Ther Nauvoo time period is a crazy insane mess!
Emily, In 1859 William Marks stated, “I feel desirous to communicate through your periodical a few suggestions made manifest to me by the Spirit of God, in relation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. About the first of June, 1844, (situated as I was at that time, being Presiding Elder of the Stake at Nauvoo, and by appointment the presiding officer of the High Council,) I had a very good opportunity to know the affairs of the church; and my convictions at that time were, that the church in a great measure had departed from the pure principles and doctrines of Jesus Christ. I felt much troubled in mind about the condition of the church. I prayed earnestly to my heavenly Father to show me something in regard to it, when I was wrapped in vision, and it was shown me by the Spirit that the top or branches had overcome the root, in sin and wickedness, and the only way to cleanse and purify it was to disorganize it and in due time the Lord would reorganize it again. There were many other things suggested to my mind, but the lapse of time has erased them from my memory. A few days after this occurrence I met with Brother Joseph. He said that he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the church, and we retired by ourselves. I will give his words verbatim, for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of polygamy. He said it eventually would prove the overthrow of the church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion made to put it down. He said that he would go before the Congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High Council, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression, and I must sever them from the church, unless they made ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but this was the substance. The mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few days after, therefore there was nothing done concerning it. After the Prophet’s death, I made mention of this conversation to several, hoping and believing that it would have a good effect; but to my great disappointment, it was soon rumored about that Brother Marks was about to apostatize, and that all that he said about the conversation with the Prophet was a tissue of lies.” (William Marks, Saints’ Herald, vol. 1, Oct. 23, 1859, Shabbona, DeKalb County, Illinois, pp.22-23; RLDS History of the Church 2:733).
If one believes Joseph was a polygamist, it's possible to interpret Marks' words as confirmation Joseph practiced polygamy but decided to abandon it right before he was killed. By the same token, if one believes Joseph was not a polygamist, also it's possible to interpret his words as confirmation Joseph had decided to take formal steps to try to stamp out the nefarious practice he had always fought against. Interestingly, Marks' quote is similar to what William Smith, Joseph and Hyrum's brother who was an apostle in good standing when Joseph and Hyrum were killed, claimed Joseph said a few weeks before the martyrdom. In a letter to his nephew (who was Joseph and Emma's son), William Smith claimed, "I called on your father and took breakfast with him. While seated at the table a conversation was had participated in by your mother [Emma], concerning some things that she had learned in the discharge of her mission among the Saints as one of a committee appointed by the Female Relief Society, to visit the Saints and look after the interest of the poor of [the] Church; to enquire after their occupation and financial prospect for food and means of support. In relating her report she said, that some complaint had been made to her by females whom she had visited, that John Taylor, Willard Richards, and Brigham Young had been teaching some doctrines among the Saints privately that was going to ruin the Church, unless there was a stop put to it, as it was contrary to the law and rules governing the Church. Your father remarked that he would attend to the matter as soon as he got through with his troubles with the Laws and Fosters. But mark you their conversation took place only a few days previous to your father's death...One other point I wish to notice in the conversation that took place while I was eating at your father’s table, and that was, as the conversation turned upon Brigham Young, your father remarked that with regard to the charge brought against those brethren, that he expected that he would have trouble with Brigham Young, especially, and added that "should the time ever come that this man B. Young should lead the Church that he would lead it to hell."...These matters that I have thus named do not comprise the whole ground of the causes that led to your father’s death; although in part it did, as this secret evil that had crept into the Church, by means of this private teaching, gave food and material for the Expositor press to pour out its vials of wrath upon the head of the prophet, making him responsible for the conduct and teaching of these secret and clandestine teachers." (Source: From "A Proclamation" in the Warsaw Signal, Warsaw, Illinois, October 29, 1845)
Also, there’s a reference I didn’t include in the video that may help explain my conclusion about Martha never meeting Joseph. Martha Brotherton’s sister explained that “My father only stayed nine weeks in the church after we came to Nauvoo.“ If by Nauvoo she meant the Nauvoo area including Warsaw, then Martha’s father would have left the church by January 27 of 1842, which aligns with a letter Joseph Fielding wrote to England that same month (January 1842) warning “some will send home an evil report, such as brother B. from Macclesfield,” referencing Martha’s father. The source I mentioned comes from a letter written in Nauvoo by William Clayton on March 30, 1842, referencing the Brothertons’ allegations making their way back to England. Clayton wrote, “you say you are almost wearied with the lies, etc. This is what we must expect in these days for this is a lying and wicked generation even many in whom we have a great confidence, when we see them brought into trial, give way to an evil spirit. Old Mr. B-, and daughter, like many others, were assailed by the apostate crews, who they scattered on the banks of the river; and all manner of evil reports were sounded in their ears, after they became discouraged; and, finally, almost denied the faith before they came near Nauvoo. People coming here with their minds thus prejudiced, will naturally construe everything they see and hear into evil, and will imagine evil where there is none. In this state, the Brotherton family came, and were something like spies, afraid to be spoken to by anyone, lest they should be ensnared, and especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith, less he should want their money. After remaining a short time here, they went back to Warsaw, where some of the greatest enemies reside, and, I am sorry to say, have joined in the general clamor and business of circulating evil reports, some of which I, myself, know positively to be false.”
As mentioned in the video, Martha’s sister that stayed in Warsaw when her family moved briefly to Nauvoo claimed she never met the prophet Joseph while she lived in Warsaw (from the end of November 1841 through March of 1842). Given that, according to Clayton, Martha and her parents only lived a short time in Nauvoo and then went back to Warsaw, and, while in Nauvoo, they kept to themselves and were “especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith,” it’s not unrealistic to think that Martha might never have seen Joseph Smith after her solicitation by Brigham.
@@robfotheringham2289 that’s quite a response
@@robfotheringham2289 This phrase from Martha's sister is interesting: "...lest they should be ensnared, and especially afraid to meet Joseph Smith, less he should want their money." Why do you think that this would have been a concern for the Brotheringtons?
Additionally, William was caught up with polygamy before his 1845 statement in the Warsaw Signal suggesting Joseph wanted to root polygamy out of the church. Why do you suppose that William would have said that, considering he, himself was practising it? I have a document from Yale printed in 1844 that shows this is the case, if you are interested in seeing it.
Joseph is a proven Liar. The church admits as much in the Gospel Topics Essays. Why wouldn't you believe the church? If Joseph actually practiced Polygamy, would it affect your faith?
The church lies all the time to protect their "good name." Why would you believe anything they say about polygamy considering if Joseph didn't practice it, that would blow I gigantic hole in their claim of authority?
I love the circular logic here:
- The LDS Church lies
- The LDS Church says that Joseph was a liar
- Because Joseph was a liar, the LDS Church is false
- Because the LDS Church is false, the LDS Church lies.
You rely on the same organization you decry as deceitful for evidence that Joseph was a liar. 9/10 mental gymnastics!
THE CHURCH is the proven liar. There is NO proof that Joseph was a liar about anything and MOUNTAINS of evidence that Brigham and his MANY cohorts and minions (who started the church we know as the LDS/Mormons today) were total liars, adulterers, fornicators, and even murderers.
When liars call someone else a liar, you take it with a grain of salt.
@@newmommy1010 I feel sorry for you that you were lied to by people that you should have been able to trust. But the church has shown a consistent pattern of dishonesty since the moment it began.
Rob, are you ashamed of Joseph and the truth? Did your parent's divorce due to infidelity?
Whaaa?
@@JacobIsBell there's a troll in the dungeon!