A couple of years ago Cheryl Bruno called me out online over something I had written that she felt was factually innacurate. I no longer recall what our disagreement was, but what I do remember is that she invited me to call her and we chatted for a long time about that topic and others. I have a tremendous amount of respect for cheryl because she not only shows academic integrity, but if she has a disagreement over a matter, she approaches the topic intellectually and not emotionally, as so many unfortunately tend to. By the end of the conversation we were fast friends, and I learned many historical facts from her I had not been aware of previously. Cheryl Bruno is the epitome of an intellectual heavyweight. She is interested in learning the truth above all else; if all LDS historians were as dedicated to the craft as she is, there would be a lot more truth uncovered and a lot fewer snarky accusations thrown about.
We are about to find out if your assessment of Cheryl’s academic integrity is correct or not. If she is objective and willing to go where the evidence takes her, then she will at some point change her position from “Joseph practiced polygamy” to “Joseph is innocent of the charge of polygamy.” The evidence that Michelle, Whitney, Jeremy, etc, have brought forward is irrefutable. It will separate the “honest in heart” professional historians from the Brian Hales historian camp. No one has to get worked up about it because all will become clear with time and as even more exculpatory evidence on Joseph’s behalf comes to light.
Hank you Cheryl and Michelle 😊 It is vital that we pay closer attention to provenance, handwriting, timeline, influence, access to ALL archival documents. We need the originals and we cannot assume copies are original or are genuinely accurate. How ever is none of this is important I can make copies of a copy of a Monet I am happy to sell for the value of a verified Monet 👍🏼
So excited for both of your work on the August 1843 high council meeting, such an interesting part of the story and misinformation continues to be spread about it.
Oh Michelle! Please don't wait for others to complete their research before making an episode, even if your guest requests it. They may never complete the research and hamstring you! They can work at their pace and you can work at yours. Your diplomatic attitude is wonderful! I just worry you'll bend too much to accommodate others, compromising your own work.❤
Thank you for this comment. Yes, I want to be very careful to do what I feel good about doing. Not what others want me to do. The High Council meeting is a huge topic! I did most of my research clear back when I was doing the expositor episodes, and I had planned to cover it then, but so many people were anxious for the Temple episodes that I decided to do those first and I never yet got back to the High Council. I need to dig back out all of my notes and get that topic going again, which I absolutely will do. I am happy that Cheryl is working on it as well because I think that we can both collaborate and hopefully both of our work will end up better as a result, no matter which one of us gets our project done first.
@MichelleBStone I just watched your interview with CWic media. Great job ✨ thank you for your work! It’s absolutely amazing and you are an inspiration. It was astounding watching the strange ways pushback was made. Prayers to you for strength and truth ✨
All you have to do is read Jacob 2&3 and ask God to help you understand what verse 30 is actually saying. It helps to read verse 30 then go back and read verse 25. 25 tells us that the people he is speaking to are the seed verse 30 is talking about and that their for runners aka Lehi and those who came with him had to get out of the wicked, corrupt Jerusalem (I will command my people as in command them to leave) "otherwise they (Lehi and the others) shall hearken unto these things". God didn't want all his people to become corrupt and wicked so he commanded some to get out while they could. God paired them up perfectly as one man with one woman. He didn't send a bunch of extra women. Then if we finish the chapter he tells us why polygamy is such a wicked abomination and should not be practiced.
Well said. The rationalizing of early Church polygamy completely collapses when you realize that "these things" in Jacob 2:30 throughout the chapter referred to the bad things (including polygamy) that the Nephites were doing. I capitalized "things" as "THINGS" in the following verses in Jacob 2 to show this: 14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in THIS THING? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in THESE THINGS his judgments must speedily come unto you. 21 Do ye not suppose that such THINGS are abominable unto him who created all flesh? And the one being is as precious in his sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust; and for the selfsame end hath he created them, that they should keep his commandments and glorify him forever. 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of THE THINGS which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto THESE THINGS. 34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done THESE THINGS which ye ought not to have done.
That’s funny. You’re awesome! I was thinking this as soon as this Kathy Bates looking lady started screeching out her “blah blah blah I’m right” drivel.
I still can't see the so called "exception" anywhere 🤷♀️. My daughter and I were trying to see if we could pick up on it and never did. Brigham had to try real hard to make that work. What's so disheartening are the loads of come follow me channels that taught why God "commanded" it instead of why we stay away from it. John Bythway John Hilton were amongst our favorites😭. We don't watch anymore. I love however, that Taylor Halverson on scripture insights does not believe in polygamy, I'm not sure he ever did. He wrote a paper on it back in 2017 how prophets and kings are supposed to serve with their people and not take more unto themselves and he specifically says wives, money etc.... and he has repeated that throughout the year. I love that he greatly stressed chastity and how God feels about it when going over Jacob back in February. He's now our favorite channel
Great episode, perfect example of how the historical consensus can be challenged. Cheryl mentioned reading the letter to the Whitney’s with her polygamy lens already on, or that she assumed the Whitney revelation was a contemporary document. Good on her for admitting that. Obviously, if the Whitney revelation could be proven as a contemporary document, this debate is over. To Cheryl’s point though, this needs to be considered as a 1912 document. When considering that the church had just spent decades trying to justify polygamy and prove Joseph’s involvement, this document becomes even more suspicious based on context.
I am excited to see some real progress being made toward the honest and thorough investigation into the polygamy issues. Will The Journal of Mormon Polygamy be a subscription item? How can we sign up? I completely agree that there needs to be open conversation between the various viewpoints.
We do not have plans to charge for subscriptions at this time. We envision the articles being freely available online, and each issue will be available by print-on-demand.
@@cherylbruno5368 I would be willing to pay a modest amount to have that information available. It sounds like you are facing a large task of building a computer system with searching capabilities. Am I understanding that correctly? If you are not charging for a subscription, how about something like the Member option for RUclips channels? (Some way to pledge and deliver a monthly gift) Is it a question of legal (taxation/accounting) issues?
This is the sort of work that everyone can get behind regardless of what conclusion you have already arrived at for Joseph’s polygamy. Thank you both so much!!! I’ve pointed this out to you before, Michelle, in my view, Joseph Kingsbury’s handwriting in his reminiscence shows inconsistencies in formation - but I’m no professionally trained, forensic handwriting analyst. These inconsistencies particularly apply to the handwriting attributed to him for the Section 132 copy.
You've been getting hammered in both the Mormon and ex-Mormon channels lately. Personally I've not been able to join your narrative in claiming that Smith wasnt a polygamist. But you're always willingness to engage critics and historians, where it's uncomfortable, is always admirable. Engaging Bruno's critiques and feedback go a long way for your credibility as a researcher imo. Working with someone of her background, skill, and abilities will make your research better, no matter who you are.
I believe Brigham followed Bennett and course he committed adultery on his mission. Reading the JD I realized how awful his attitude toward women was. I can't reconcile the stark differences between Brigham and Joseph. One man received revelation from God and one man was carnal.
@@reppi8742 Your last sentence betrays your presuppositions and explains why you can't reconcile data to yourself. The data goes wherever it goes, is sometimes messy and unclear, and sometimes tells us something we don't want to hear or understand because our presuppositions are mentally biases and therefore blocking us from thinking about it. I personally think it's fine to have biases, just be aware they are there, then you can work to check yourself from these blind spots.
I think we need to go back to Joseph's oringinal answer from prayer, "none of them are true". The gigantic falsehoods that go against BofM and Bible teaching show us that. We need to start spending our time in scripture study and prayer. I'm done studying the history of polygamy in the church or at all. When God gives you the answer, I'm finding it's time to move on to the next thing he wants you to pray about. His world of truth is much more beyond the (lds) church. Yes, still a member and went yesterday, not sure how much longer it will happen though. Good people in complacency...its super sad.
Great show. Could you make a list of the issues you’ve found with the historicity of this document? I tried to follow but wasn’t able to clearly conceptualize the issues. Thank uoi
Cheryl is much more credible than Brian Hales, who mostly focuses on rationalizing Joseph's actions. I like how Cheryl said she thought Joseph "felt" he was commanded to practice polygamy. But she in no way tried to defend or rationalize it. This is the way to go. Boyd K Packer notes that it is extremely easy to confuse emotions with revelation. Why could this not apply to Joseph? We know it did, as Joseph received a "revelation" to sell the publication rights to the Book of Mormon. Which thankfully never came to fruition. When Joseph was asked why, he said that some revelations come of God, some of men, and some of the devil. This describes 132 perfectly. Which is why I think only D&C 132:4 to 33 should be canonized. The rest should no longer be canonized. Similar to how offensive things were taken out of the endowment.
@@MichelleBStone Thanks. Just as I loved this episode. Cheryl is the perfect guest. I changed this comment to have the first 3 lines say: Cheryl is much more credible than Brian Hales, who mostly focuses on rationalizing Joseph's actions. I like how Cheryl said she thought Joseph "felt" he was commanded to practice polygamy. But she in no way tried to defend or rationalize it. This is the way to go.
Maybe you could add Doctrine and Covenants 123 to the preface of the journal. And again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them by the people of this State; 2 And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries, as well as real property; 3 And also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can get hold of them and find them out. 4 And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat; 5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom, and present the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality and nefarious and murderous impositions that have been practiced upon this people- 6 That we may not only publish to all the world, but present them to the heads of government in all their dark and hellish hue, as the last effort which is enjoined on us by our Heavenly Father, before we can fully and completely claim that promise which shall call him forth from his hiding place; and also that the whole nation may be left without excuse before he can send forth the power of his mighty arm. 7 It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity. 8 It is an iron yoke, it is a strong band; they are the very handcuffs, and chains, and shackles, and fetters of hell. 9 Therefore it is an imperative duty that we owe, not only to our own wives and children, but to the widows and fatherless, whose husbands and fathers have been murdered under its iron hand; 10 Which dark and blackening deeds are enough to make hell itself shudder, and to stand aghast and pale, and the hands of the very devil to tremble and palsy. 11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart- 12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it- 13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven- 14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness. 15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things. 16 You know, brethren, that a very large ship is benefited very much by a very small helm in the time of a storm, by being kept workways with the wind and the waves. 17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.
The problem with getting to the truth regarding polygamy is there is so much bias for and against Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. The truth if it’s possible to find in what scarce evidence there is will come from skilled researchers with no bias.
I wonder how many men are applying for cancellations to their sealing to a former spouse. The church has a conundrum - if women HAVE to get a cancellation and men don't, that is sexist and the church is being more pro women, right? You do an excellent job with these documents. Thanks for allowing us to bring up other thoughts. I'm reading so much my thoughts don't always fit the episode.
Yes! I had my sealing cancelled last February. My Ex-husband was talking about getting married again. He told me it wasn’t necessary to get our sealing cancelled. There is no way in HELL I would be in a crazy a.. trio!!!
@@Esty120 I remarried. had my first sealing cancelled and then we were given permission to be be sealed. It bothered both of us that it was required of me but not available to him. We've been sealed for 34 years and he just applied for his cancellation, now that we know about it. We both have always believed in monogamy and our Stake President 34 years ago said we would not have to live in an unhappy state on the other side. His ex was a serial adulteress who abused her children physically and sexually. Men should have been able to apply immediately. He was simply told she had violated her covenants so not to worry. Sorry but that just isn't good enough. I'm glad they are making things right but it shouldn't have taken this long. Imo polygamy is barbaric.
I'm enjoying this collaboration. William Marks always struck me as being a solid source of Joseph's actions up to June of 1844. I hope I'm not too off-topic here, but have you checked that source Michelle? I may have missed some of your recent work. Thank you for your passion.
Yes, I have read Mark's quotes. They are extremely interesting, and seem to pose challenges for just about any narrative. I am looking forward to digging into Mark's more when I read Cheryl's new book.
Dear brothers and sisters. God has given and allowed righteous men plural wives and you just have to learn to accept it. Secondly, the context in Jacob 2, is that David and Solomon were abusing their privileges of having plural wives as demonstrated by David lusting after other women out of wedlock as just one example mentioned in biblical scripture. Even murder, to boot. Their sins were how they were treating their wives, many children and families. Even whoredoms such as unrighteous kinds of sex with or to their wives and adultery out of wedlock. That is disgusting in God's eyes. The sin was not that they had multiple wives as is proven by God giving and allowing multiple wives to righteous men throughout history. The sin was defiling righteous eternal plural unions by adultery and the laws of chastity! Obviously, some Nephites were taking on the practice and abusing it as were those in Jerusalem when Lehi left so Jacob was preaching against it. When men abuse righteous polygamy and think "so what, King David and Solomon had many wives" are not understanding their scriptures just like it says in Jacob 2 and... neither are most who side with this channel's content. . It says so right in Jacob 2. God detests having multiple wives and abusing the privilege. You can't have multiple wives just because David was a sinner and he had many. That is the true context of all that is written in Jacob 2 . If you can't consolidate these facts from both biblical and Jacob's teachings, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR SCRIPTURES, there is little light in you regarding this issue and you are working against the truth and the faith. Caps for emphasis only. Proper plural marriage has been smiled upon by the Lord when HE sees fit as is proven in the scriptures in Jacob 2:30 and clearly, it shows when God gave all King David's to another man who would be righteous with all his wives. God bless and I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ . Amen :>)
Dallin H. Oaks recently admitted that he does not know if he will have both of his wives in the next life. A humble admission. I think it is best not to worry about that. The main thing is Jacob 2 condemns whoredoms like polygamy in this life.
@@jaredvaughan1665 Where did he say that? I’ve seen him talk about having two wives and how he and his second wife talked about that before they were sealed.
Please forgive my well-intentioned rather long, hastily constructed comment on an important, complex subject about which I am more interested than expert: Polygamy or not polygamy, that is the question. Polygamy has always been a problem for Mormons. Its praxis and doxy never set well with them. In 1966, my bishop adamantly insisted that Joseph Smith was never a polygamist, that such a claim was heresy. He believed it was a false teaching of the Reorganized Church! He had it backwards, of course; and I didn’t dare correct him. Most educated Mormons in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the group that followed Brigham Young, have traditionally believed Joseph Smith to have been a polygamist, while most Mormons who did not go west with Young and eventually created the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (presently called Community of Christ) believed Joseph Smith had never been a polygamist. At least, that was the alignment of beliefs in the two main branches of Mormonism back in 1966. There has been a shift. Currently, a significant contingent of Utah Mormons do not believe Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy, while many Mormons in Community of Christ do. The denial of Smith’s polygamy by Utah Mormons is based on their assertion that there is scant documentary evidence contemporary with Smith’s life that supports the claim that he did so. Plus, there are the polygamy denials of Smith and his wife Emma. There are also, I am told, the results of DNA studies conducted mostly (possibly exclusively) by geneticist Hugo Perego that demonstrate that none of the alleged wives of Smith produced offspring genetically traceable to Smith. Moreover, the traditional view that Smith’s personal practice of polygamy was evidenced by his production of the revelation that appears as Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This belief has been shaken because there exists no version of that revelation traceable to July of 1843 when it was allegedly dictated by Smith. Traditional reliance upon William Clayton‘s journal as a contemporary source for that revelation is doubted because Clayton apparently interlineated at a later date his journal the account of the July 1843 dictation of that revelation thus back-dating it and raising suspicions that the account was fabricated. There is contemporary evidence that the polygamy revelation was obliquely referenced in the minutes of the high Council of Zion presided over by William Marks, but that evidence is considered weak and vague. So the battle is joined mostly due to the weakness or absence or insufficiency of contemporary evidence that Joseph Smith personally practiced or personally authorized polygamy as a revelation from God. This dispute, which has persisted for a number of years, reminds me of the dispute whether Mark Twain‘s novel, Huckleberry Finn, is racist or anti-racist. The novel has been banned and Twain denounced as racist by people based mostly on Twain’s repeated use of the N-word throughout the book. Those who see the novel as anti-racist justify his use of the offending word as essential to the novel’s scathing, satirical condemnation of racism. What is the connection between the dispute whether Huckleberry Finn is racist or not and the dispute whether Joseph Smith was a polygamist or not? These disputes have several elements in common: a hidden assumption of or perhaps an obsession with purity supported by a myopic preference for trivialities over purpose and a lapse into judgmental moral presentism accompanied by an unsupportable assertion of mass conspiracy. The condemnation of Twain and Smith novel are each predicated on the assumption that both novel and practice are impure. The impurity of Huckleberry Finn is assumed due to Twain’s repeated use of a demeaning expletive. The impurity of Smith’s polygamy is assumed because it departs from traditional and acceptable monogamy. These are narrow-minded reasons. Twain does not use the N-word to cast aspersions upon African-Americans. He uses it to create verisimilitude and authenticity and to satirize American racism. Likewise, there is nothing necessarily and implicitly impure about polygamy or even authoritarian or misogynistic about it, at least in its true sense of “many marriages.” Joseph Smith did not practice polygyny, as it was later practiced in Utah, which is the marriage of one husband simultaneously to more than one wife. Smith practiced polygamy, in its sense of many marriages in which some husbands had more than one wife, some wives had more than one husband, some marriages were possibly dynastic but not physical, others were both physical and spiritual, others may have been marriages only for this life, yet others for the afterlife. It is not clear or settled. Objections to both Twain’s book and Smith’s practice seem prejudiced, judgmental, and self-righteous. These negative assessments of both Twain and Smith seem to be sustained by myopic preferences for trivialities over larger purposes, by privileging present over past moral sensibilities, and by a belief in unsupportable conspiracy. In the case of Huckleberry Finn, Twain’s use of the N-word viewed myopically obscures his novel’s satirical narrative arc and purpose that mock American racism even as Twain dramatizes the metaphorical journey down the Mississippi in which young, white Huck realizes the equality of old black Jim, whom Huck comes to admire and love as a father who replaces the biological white, racist, drunkard father Huck once nearly murdered in his sleep. The notion that Twain’s novel is racist is sustainable only if one accepts a quasi conspiratorial view that ignores the entirety of the Twain corpus, including his Mysterious Stranger, his Letters From Earth, his 1901 essay The United States of Lyncherdom, and his biography of Joan of Arc. In the case of Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy, the understandable abhorrence to his marriages to multiple women (a few in their teens and all probably without the consent of his first wife Emma) obscures polygamy’s cultural context within the early- and mid-19th century’s larger, radical marriage reforms advanced by luminaries such as Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, as Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley and Lord Byron, by the Oneida and Shaker communities, and by the Transcendentalists, to name a few; that abhorrence also obscures the possible ecclesiastical power of Smith’s polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, and its corollary, polytheism, permanently to estrange Mormon heterodoxy from Christian orthodoxy, thus rendering impossible for Mormonism both to defend polygamy as a revelation from God and also to be accepted as Christian religion by any denomination predicated upon the decisions of the first seven ecumenical councils. Finally, to believe Smith did not practice polygamy would require his devoted followers to have practiced it without his knowledge right under his nose and that such practice was later justified by Brigham Young’s fraudulent creation of fictitious supporting evidences such as William Clayton’s doctored journal, a fabricated Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and by pioneer women in Utah who had known Joseph Smith in Nauvoo and had been coerced into signing perjured or otherwise fabricated affidavits to the effect that Smith was a polygamist when in fact these women knew that he was not. Such a conspiracy would require the fraudulent involvement of hundreds and possibly thousands of 19th century Utah Mormons lying that Joseph Smith was a polygamist when either they knew he was not or didn’t know if he was or wasn’t. To sustain such an edifice of lies would require the complicity of people who had an unshakable allegiance to Joseph Smith as a prophet of the living God. It’s too much for me to believe in such co-ordinated mendacity that polygamy was practiced without Smith’s knowledge or authority by his own followers. It makes much more sense for me to believe as I have always supposed that in polygamy was a secret condoned and practice by Joseph Smith despite the paucity of contemporary documentary and testimonial evidence of his involvement. Both Twain and Smith swam against the currents of their contemporary cultures by advancing two oddly paradoxical causes.
Thank you for your comment Paul. I enjoyed reading it, but I disagree. I would be interested to see what evidence you have to support your assumption that the only reason to be skeptical of Joseph Smith's polygamy is a misplaced presentist moral bias. Much could be said about this, but I will just say that, at least for myself, this is simply not the case. One can easily oppose polygamy and still believe Joseph Smith participated. Many people, including most post Mormons and anti Mormons, and even many active Mormons hold that view. One can easily be open to polygamy and still believe Joseph did not participate. This is a less common view, but I know several people who hold it. I think feminist approaches to the question are also important to consider. I have come to strongly center Emma in the conversation and the study. It was actually studying Emma that persuaded me to believe that Joseph was not a polygamist and that she was telling the truth. I think it is inappropriate to claim that the harm to Emma if the polygamy narrative were true is either not actual harm, or is irrelevant because of the assumption that it is only people's modern sensibilities that would inspire them to morally object to polygamy. The rest of your comment are explanations that I have heard many times before, and that I think are worthy of engagement, but none of this was the topic of this episode. I see your list of objections, but I don't think they are all accurate, and the ones that are I think are overshadowed by the list of objections on the other side. In either case, Joseph's polygamy is a fascinating question that I strongly believe warrants much more work to be done. And, as fascinating as that discussion is, it is far from the only interesting and important aspect of polygamy. The Journal of Mormon polygamy will have a FAR broader focus than merely this one question, and will not center this question since it will not be polemic in nature. There are so many aspects to polygamy, and many that continue on in full force to this day. The impacts of polygamy, both past and current, are massive and warrant research and discussion. All of the evidence on this topic needs further investigations, and most of the assumptions need to be re-examined. I think that is a very worthy pursuit. I hope you will continue to engage.
Thank you for your comment, Paul. I largely agree. And how I love your prose! e.g. "These disputes have several elements in common: a hidden assumption of or perhaps an obsession with purity supported by a myopic preference for trivialities over purpose and a lapse into judgmental moral presentism accompanied by an unsupportable assertion of mass conspiracy." Lovely. However, the question at hand is, are these conversations worth having? Is there enough ambiguity in the documentation to entertain possibilities we may not yet have considered? You seem to understand the difficulties on both sides. How I would love for you to submit an article for consideration in our Journal!!
Maybe this scripture could be in the preface of the journal!!Doctor and Covenants 12:And again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them by the people of this State; 2 And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries, as well as real property; 3 And also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can get hold of them and find them out. 4 And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat; 5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom, and present the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality and nefarious and murderous impositions that have been practiced upon this people- 6 That we may not only publish to all the world, but present them to the heads of government in all their dark and hellish hue, as the last effort which is enjoined on us by our Heavenly Father, before we can fully and completely claim that promise which shall call him forth from his hiding place; and also that the whole nation may be left without excuse before he can send forth the power of his mighty arm. 7 It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity. 8 It is an iron yoke, it is a strong band; they are the very handcuffs, and chains, and shackles, and fetters of hell. 9 Therefore it is an imperative duty that we owe, not only to our own wives and children, but to the widows and fatherless, whose husbands and fathers have been murdered under its iron hand; 10 Which dark and blackening deeds are enough to make hell itself shudder, and to stand aghast and pale, and the hands of the very devil to tremble and palsy. 11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart- 12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it- 13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven- 14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness. 15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things. 16 You know, brethren, that a very large ship is benefited very much by a very small helm in the time of a storm, by being kept workways with the wind and the waves. 17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.
I agree with your position that it is far more logical that Joseph was part of the polygamy conspiracy for reasons I've already expressed. If Joseph was untouched by polygamy and never dictated 132, why was he so quick to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor printing press? You would think he would be eager to publicly combat the claims head on and proclaim his innocence once and for all. Also why is it that Joseph held every major civic office in Nauvoo, was running for President of the United States, and insisted he dictate to his followers who to vote for in elections? When God told Joseph in D&C 24:9 that: "And in temporal labors thou shalt not have strength, for this is not thy calling. Attend to thy calling and thou shalt have wherewith to magnify thine office, and to expound all scriptures, and continue in laying on of the hands and confirming the churches." This is all evidence of abuse of authority near the end of his life that resulted in his early death. Does this mean Joseph lost his priesthood keys??? No, it does not. Anymore than Moses did when God told him he was not to enter the promised land due to his transgressions. Both Jesus and Joseph appeared to Emma in a vision before her death. This is proof to me that God forgave Joseph for his transgressions. When I read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography I questioned why God could call immoral men to great positions. And then it hit me that our our position in life does not determine our righteousness. Also fornication is a massive temptation to those in positions of power. Solomon, David, are but a few examples. But God still choose them. I have no problem accepting that Joseph, Brigham, and others were highly flawed but still his prophets. Because I myself am highly flawed, and it gives me wiggle room to see how powerful Christ's atonement really is: The only perfect man on this earth.
I think your comparison with Mark Twain is poorly founded. It simply accepts the traditional narrative held by the collective Judas, and leapfrogs any other possible narrative straight to a critique of naivete. So your point about _narrow minded reasons_ is lost on me because it is based on a fundamental level on condescension. In addition to this, it ultimately indicates that you, like Dan Vogel and other historians, are not yet willing to engage with Mrs Stone's critiques of the source material. Please forgive me, but your treatment above of the narrative of Joseph's innocence as a common house fly addendum essentially betrays the fact that you haven't examined Miss Stones material authentically. This narrative is older than all of us. It's old enough to be directly associated with Emma, Hyrum, and Lucy Mack, all of whom were present when Joseph was living. It's old enough to have produced the first major schism. So it is absolutely worth owning on a granular level. If the narrative presented by Joseph's accusers (which you espouse) is so rock solid and undeniable, then how is it possible for anyone on this space rock to go back to the source material presented in the Joseph Smith papers series and continue to find additional evidence in support for the oldest opposing narrative? This entire critique of the desire for purity is an ad hominem sideshow. Given the time to reflect, I'm sure you will arrive at the conclusion that it is an unworthy method for engaging on this topic. Mrs Stone's treatment of the original source documents is becoming robust. You and others are simply unwilling to give her the time of day until there is enough inertia within your club to admit as much. On that front, her recent exclusion from symposia is the type of dismissive gatekeeping that always causes people with integrity (Bruno and Bradley, in this case) to subvert the established order. The entire idea of _peer review_ underscores the fact that monologues are inferior to authentic dialogues. Don Bradley's point about visual parallax is a much more appropriate comparison on this matter, in my opinion. If the intelligentsia is to be as deeply entrenched upon a hermetic perch as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and both of them use language that betrays a preference for fraternal order and dispersal over authentic dialogue, then what essential difference is there to be understood between them for a no-name, unaccredited layperson such as myself? A much more pertinent question exists regarding Mrs Stone; when is she going to be engaged and treated like a mind instead of a mere MIA Maid?
@@MichelleBStone Alpha male and narcissism often go hand in hand. Just look at Donald Trump and Elon Musk to see that. And even Mitt Romney who has an elevator going from his garage to his kitchen. And yet these same narcissists often hold the highest positions in society. Not because they are better than everyone else but because they are a better fit and easily admired by the masses. But I do not envy them though. I would rather live in a lowly fertile valley than on a high cold and barren mountain peak.
@@jaredvaughan1665 Yes, this is true. And many of the high power narcissists are not faithful to their wife. Egocentric men in positions of power don't like limits, and don't believe they should be limited to "just one wife." That is the essence of polygamy -- a justified way for religious leaders to satisfy their narcissistic desire to overcome God's boundary of fidelity to their wife.
She is definitely in good faith. She believes in Jacob 2 more than any General Authority in the Church right now. It is they who need to catch up to her faith in the Book of Mormon. She is a lot closer to the truth than those Church apologists who rationalize away Joseph's adulterous heart that inflicted much pain on his wife and descendants. Few of who believe he was a prophet. That is one of the many fruits of fornication. I believe both Joseph and Brigham were prophets. But both were heavily flawed and succumbed to the deceptions of the flesh. Michelle's faith is primarily in Jesus Christ. Someone we can count on to be perfect. I see Michelle's message as half full. She fully sees Brigham's fallibility. She just cannot see Joseph's yet. But the standard Church narrative cannot see either as being flawed. And rationalizes all of their actions, good or bad. So yes, Michelle is certainly in good faith. And is doing a great work in restoring the message of the Book of Mormon which condemns all whoredoms, including polygamy.
A couple of years ago Cheryl Bruno called me out online over something I had written that she felt was factually innacurate. I no longer recall what our disagreement was, but what I do remember is that she invited me to call her and we chatted for a long time about that topic and others. I have a tremendous amount of respect for cheryl because she not only shows academic integrity, but if she has a disagreement over a matter, she approaches the topic intellectually and not emotionally, as so many unfortunately tend to. By the end of the conversation we were fast friends, and I learned many historical facts from her I had not been aware of previously.
Cheryl Bruno is the epitome of an intellectual heavyweight. She is interested in learning the truth above all else; if all LDS historians were as dedicated to the craft as she is, there would be a lot more truth uncovered and a lot fewer snarky accusations thrown about.
I LOVE this comment! Thank you, Rock!
Thank you, Rock! I love your blog, though I don't always agree. I have valued my association with you!
We are about to find out if your assessment of Cheryl’s academic integrity is correct or not. If she is objective and willing to go where the evidence takes her, then she will at some point change her position from “Joseph practiced polygamy” to “Joseph is innocent of the charge of polygamy.” The evidence that Michelle, Whitney, Jeremy, etc, have brought forward is irrefutable. It will separate the “honest in heart” professional historians from the Brian Hales historian camp. No one has to get worked up about it because all will become clear with time and as even more exculpatory evidence on Joseph’s behalf comes to light.
What a wonderful conversation. So glad Cheryl is willing to engage in the conversation. She brings a lot of good!
Hank you Cheryl and Michelle 😊 It is vital that we pay closer attention to provenance, handwriting, timeline, influence, access to ALL archival documents. We need the originals and we cannot assume copies are original or are genuinely accurate.
How ever is none of this is important I can make copies of a copy of a Monet I am happy to sell for the value of a verified Monet 👍🏼
So excited for both of your work on the August 1843 high council meeting, such an interesting part of the story and misinformation continues to be spread about it.
Oh Michelle! Please don't wait for others to complete their research before making an episode, even if your guest requests it. They may never complete the research and hamstring you! They can work at their pace and you can work at yours. Your diplomatic attitude is wonderful! I just worry you'll bend too much to accommodate others, compromising your own work.❤
Thank you for this comment. Yes, I want to be very careful to do what I feel good about doing. Not what others want me to do. The High Council meeting is a huge topic! I did most of my research clear back when I was doing the expositor episodes, and I had planned to cover it then, but so many people were anxious for the Temple episodes that I decided to do those first and I never yet got back to the High Council. I need to dig back out all of my notes and get that topic going again, which I absolutely will do. I am happy that Cheryl is working on it as well because I think that we can both collaborate and hopefully both of our work will end up better as a result, no matter which one of us gets our project done first.
@MichelleBStone I just watched your interview with CWic media. Great job ✨ thank you for your work! It’s absolutely amazing and you are an inspiration. It was astounding watching the strange ways pushback was made.
Prayers to you for strength and truth ✨
All you have to do is read Jacob 2&3 and ask God to help you understand what verse 30 is actually saying. It helps to read verse 30 then go back and read verse 25. 25 tells us that the people he is speaking to are the seed verse 30 is talking about and that their for runners aka Lehi and those who came with him had to get out of the wicked, corrupt Jerusalem (I will command my people as in command them to leave) "otherwise they (Lehi and the others) shall hearken unto these things". God didn't want all his people to become corrupt and wicked so he commanded some to get out while they could. God paired them up perfectly as one man with one woman. He didn't send a bunch of extra women. Then if we finish the chapter he tells us why polygamy is such a wicked abomination and should not be practiced.
Well said. The rationalizing of early Church polygamy completely collapses when you realize that "these things" in Jacob 2:30 throughout the chapter referred to the bad things (including polygamy) that the Nephites were doing.
I capitalized "things" as "THINGS" in the following verses in Jacob 2 to show this:
14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in THIS THING? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in THESE THINGS his judgments must speedily come unto you.
21 Do ye not suppose that such THINGS are abominable unto him who created all flesh? And the one being is as precious in his sight as the other. And all flesh is of the dust; and for the selfsame end hath he created them, that they should keep his commandments and glorify him forever.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of THE THINGS which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto THESE THINGS.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done THESE THINGS which ye ought not to have done.
That’s funny. You’re awesome! I was thinking this as soon as this Kathy Bates looking lady started screeching out her “blah blah blah I’m right” drivel.
@@jaredvaughan1665 Now try THESE THINGS in Moroni 10.3-5. Still an obvious abomination?
I still can't see the so called "exception" anywhere 🤷♀️. My daughter and I were trying to see if we could pick up on it and never did. Brigham had to try real hard to make that work. What's so disheartening are the loads of come follow me channels that taught why God "commanded" it instead of why we stay away from it. John Bythway John Hilton were amongst our favorites😭. We don't watch anymore.
I love however, that Taylor Halverson on scripture insights does not believe in polygamy, I'm not sure he ever did. He wrote a paper on it back in 2017 how prophets and kings are supposed to serve with their people and not take more unto themselves and he specifically says wives, money etc.... and he has repeated that throughout the year.
I love that he greatly stressed chastity and how God feels about it when going over Jacob back in February. He's now our favorite channel
@@jaredvaughan1665 Yep.
Great episode, perfect example of how the historical consensus can be challenged. Cheryl mentioned reading the letter to the Whitney’s with her polygamy lens already on, or that she assumed the Whitney revelation was a contemporary document. Good on her for admitting that. Obviously, if the Whitney revelation could be proven as a contemporary document, this debate is over. To Cheryl’s point though, this needs to be considered as a 1912 document. When considering that the church had just spent decades trying to justify polygamy and prove Joseph’s involvement, this document becomes even more suspicious based on context.
Thank you, Michelle and Cheryl.
I am excited to see some real progress being made toward the honest and thorough investigation into the polygamy issues. Will The Journal of Mormon Polygamy be a subscription item? How can we sign up? I completely agree that there needs to be open conversation between the various viewpoints.
We do not have plans to charge for subscriptions at this time. We envision the articles being freely available online, and each issue will be available by print-on-demand.
@@cherylbruno5368 I would be willing to pay a modest amount to have that information available. It sounds like you are facing a large task of building a computer system with searching capabilities. Am I understanding that correctly? If you are not charging for a subscription, how about something like the Member option for RUclips channels? (Some way to pledge and deliver a monthly gift) Is it a question of legal (taxation/accounting) issues?
This is the sort of work that everyone can get behind regardless of what conclusion you have already arrived at for Joseph’s polygamy. Thank you both so much!!!
I’ve pointed this out to you before, Michelle, in my view, Joseph Kingsbury’s handwriting in his reminiscence shows inconsistencies in formation - but I’m no professionally trained, forensic handwriting analyst. These inconsistencies particularly apply to the handwriting attributed to him for the Section 132 copy.
You've been getting hammered in both the Mormon and ex-Mormon channels lately. Personally I've not been able to join your narrative in claiming that Smith wasnt a polygamist. But you're always willingness to engage critics and historians, where it's uncomfortable, is always admirable. Engaging Bruno's critiques and feedback go a long way for your credibility as a researcher imo. Working with someone of her background, skill, and abilities will make your research better, no matter who you are.
I believe Brigham followed Bennett and course he committed adultery on his mission. Reading the JD I realized how awful his attitude toward women was. I can't reconcile the stark differences between Brigham and Joseph. One man received revelation from God and one man was carnal.
@@reppi8742 Your last sentence betrays your presuppositions and explains why you can't reconcile data to yourself. The data goes wherever it goes, is sometimes messy and unclear, and sometimes tells us something we don't want to hear or understand because our presuppositions are mentally biases and therefore blocking us from thinking about it. I personally think it's fine to have biases, just be aware they are there, then you can work to check yourself from these blind spots.
@@reppi8742Brigham and Joseph, like all of us, were mixed bags.
@@reppi874239 wives and only children with Emma? That’s enough evidence for me. Unless Joseph had divine control over his sperm.
I'm not sure Cheryl will receive the same benefit. Confirmation Bias is a terrible way to do research. Motivated Reasoning is highly SUS.
Love Cheryl Bruno! Thanks dear Sisters!!
You two are awesome! I definitely want to play!
Cheryl risks her hard-won reputation by shacking up with Michelle.
Michelle you did a fantastic job on this!
Cheryl seems so great!
I want a tarot reading from Cheryl now!😉
@@Esty120 I do too!
Maybe we'll make her bring her cards to the conference and do tarot readings 😃❤️😂
@@MichelleBStone so fun, I’m in!
I think we need to go back to Joseph's oringinal answer from prayer, "none of them are true".
The gigantic falsehoods that go against BofM and Bible teaching show us that. We need to start spending our time in scripture study and prayer. I'm done studying the history of polygamy in the church or at all. When God gives you the answer, I'm finding it's time to move on to the next thing he wants you to pray about. His world of truth is much more beyond the (lds) church.
Yes, still a member and went yesterday, not sure how much longer it will happen though. Good people in complacency...its super sad.
It’s hard hard to watch.
Great show. Could you make a list of the issues you’ve found with the historicity of this document? I tried to follow but wasn’t able to clearly conceptualize the issues. Thank uoi
@@Sayheybrother8 I'll see what I can do
Cheryl is much more credible than Brian Hales, who mostly focuses on rationalizing Joseph's actions.
I like how Cheryl said she thought Joseph "felt" he was commanded to practice polygamy. But she in no way tried to defend or rationalize it.
This is the way to go.
Boyd K Packer notes that it is extremely easy to confuse emotions with revelation. Why could this not apply to Joseph?
We know it did, as Joseph received a "revelation" to sell the publication rights to the Book of Mormon. Which thankfully never came to fruition.
When Joseph was asked why, he said that some revelations come of God, some of men, and some of the devil.
This describes 132 perfectly.
Which is why I think only D&C 132:4 to 33 should be canonized. The rest should no longer be canonized. Similar to how offensive things were taken out of the endowment.
@@jaredvaughan1665 I genuinely love and agree with the majority of this comment.
@@MichelleBStone Thanks. Just as I loved this episode.
Cheryl is the perfect guest.
I changed this comment to have the first 3 lines say:
Cheryl is much more credible than Brian Hales, who mostly focuses on rationalizing Joseph's actions.
I like how Cheryl said she thought Joseph "felt" he was commanded to practice polygamy. But she in no way tried to defend or rationalize it.
This is the way to go.
Maybe you could add Doctrine and Covenants 123 to the preface
of the journal.
And again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them by the people of this State; 2 And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries, as well as real property; 3 And also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can get hold of them and find them out. 4 And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat; 5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom, and present the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality and nefarious and murderous impositions that have been practiced upon this people- 6 That we may not only publish to all the world, but present them to the heads of government in all their dark and hellish hue, as the last effort which is enjoined on us by our Heavenly Father, before we can fully and completely claim that promise which shall call him forth from his hiding place; and also that the whole nation may be left without excuse before he can send forth the power of his mighty arm. 7 It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity. 8 It is an iron yoke, it is a strong band; they are the very handcuffs, and chains, and shackles, and fetters of hell. 9 Therefore it is an imperative duty that we owe, not only to our own wives and children, but to the widows and fatherless, whose husbands and fathers have been murdered under its iron hand; 10 Which dark and blackening deeds are enough to make hell itself shudder, and to stand aghast and pale, and the hands of the very devil to tremble and palsy. 11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart- 12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it- 13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven- 14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness. 15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things. 16 You know, brethren, that a very large ship is benefited very much by a very small helm in the time of a storm, by being kept workways with the wind and the waves. 17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.
The problem with getting to the truth regarding polygamy is there is so much bias for and against Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. The truth if it’s possible to find in what scarce evidence there is will come from skilled researchers with no bias.
I wonder how many men are applying for cancellations to their sealing to a former spouse. The church has a conundrum - if women HAVE to get a cancellation and men don't, that is sexist and the church is being more pro women, right?
You do an excellent job with these documents. Thanks for allowing us to bring up other thoughts. I'm reading so much my thoughts don't always fit the episode.
Yes! I had my sealing cancelled last February. My Ex-husband was talking about getting married again. He told me it wasn’t necessary to get our sealing cancelled. There is no way in HELL I would be in a crazy a.. trio!!!
@@Esty120 I remarried. had my first sealing cancelled and then we were given permission to be be sealed. It bothered both of us that it was required of me but not available to him. We've been sealed for 34 years and he just applied for his cancellation, now that we know about it. We both have always believed in monogamy and our Stake President 34 years ago said we would not have to live in an unhappy state on the other side. His ex was a serial adulteress who abused her children physically and sexually. Men should have been able to apply immediately. He was simply told she had violated her covenants so not to worry. Sorry but that just isn't good enough. I'm glad they are making things right but it shouldn't have taken this long. Imo polygamy is barbaric.
I'm enjoying this collaboration. William Marks always struck me as being a solid source of Joseph's actions up to June of 1844. I hope I'm not too off-topic here, but have you checked that source Michelle? I may have missed some of your recent work. Thank you for your passion.
Yes, I have read Mark's quotes. They are extremely interesting, and seem to pose challenges for just about any narrative. I am looking forward to digging into Mark's more when I read Cheryl's new book.
21:36 what did Cheryl say? Not kind?
Dear brothers and sisters.
God has given and allowed righteous men plural wives and you just have to learn to accept it. Secondly, the context in Jacob 2, is that David and Solomon were abusing their privileges of having plural wives as demonstrated by David lusting after other women out of wedlock as just one example mentioned in biblical scripture. Even murder, to boot. Their sins were how they were treating their wives, many children and families. Even whoredoms such as unrighteous kinds of sex with or to their wives and adultery out of wedlock. That is disgusting in God's eyes. The sin was not that they had multiple wives as is proven by God giving and allowing multiple wives to righteous men throughout history. The sin was defiling righteous eternal plural unions by adultery and the laws of chastity! Obviously, some Nephites were taking on the practice and abusing it as were those in Jerusalem when Lehi left so Jacob was preaching against it.
When men abuse righteous polygamy and think "so what, King David and Solomon had many wives" are not understanding their scriptures just like it says in Jacob 2 and... neither are most who side with this channel's content.
.
It says so right in Jacob 2. God detests having multiple wives and abusing the privilege. You can't have multiple wives just because David was a sinner and he had many. That is the true context of all that is written in Jacob 2 .
If you can't consolidate these facts from both biblical and Jacob's teachings, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR SCRIPTURES, there is little light in you regarding this issue and you are working against the truth and the faith. Caps for emphasis only.
Proper plural marriage has been smiled upon by the Lord when HE sees fit as is proven in the scriptures in Jacob 2:30 and clearly, it shows when God gave all King David's to another man who would be righteous with all his wives.
God bless and I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ . Amen :>)
Russell Nelson is sealed to two women. Does that have any bearing on Joseph Smith's practice if Nelson is a polygamist?
Dallin H. Oaks recently admitted that he does not know if he will have both of his wives in the next life. A humble admission.
I think it is best not to worry about that. The main thing is Jacob 2 condemns whoredoms like polygamy in this life.
@@jaredvaughan1665 Where did he say that? I’ve seen him talk about having two wives and how he and his second wife talked about that before they were sealed.
Please forgive my well-intentioned rather long, hastily constructed comment on an important, complex subject about which I am more interested than expert:
Polygamy or not polygamy, that is the question.
Polygamy has always been a problem for Mormons. Its praxis and doxy never set well with them. In 1966, my bishop adamantly insisted that Joseph Smith was never a polygamist, that such a claim was heresy. He believed it was a false teaching of the Reorganized Church! He had it backwards, of course; and I didn’t dare correct him.
Most educated Mormons in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the group that followed Brigham Young, have traditionally believed Joseph Smith to have been a polygamist, while most Mormons who did not go west with Young and eventually created the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (presently called Community of Christ) believed Joseph Smith had never been a polygamist. At least, that was the alignment of beliefs in the two main branches of Mormonism back in 1966.
There has been a shift. Currently, a significant contingent of Utah Mormons do not believe Joseph Smith ever practiced polygamy, while many Mormons in Community of Christ do. The denial of Smith’s polygamy by Utah Mormons is based on their assertion that there is scant documentary evidence contemporary with Smith’s life that supports the claim that he did so. Plus, there are the polygamy denials of Smith and his wife Emma. There are also, I am told, the results of DNA studies conducted mostly (possibly exclusively) by geneticist Hugo Perego that demonstrate that none of the alleged wives of Smith produced offspring genetically traceable to Smith. Moreover, the traditional view that Smith’s personal practice of polygamy was evidenced by his production of the revelation that appears as Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This belief has been shaken because there exists no version of that revelation traceable to July of 1843 when it was allegedly dictated by Smith. Traditional reliance upon William Clayton‘s journal as a contemporary source for that revelation is doubted because Clayton apparently interlineated at a later date his journal the account of the July 1843 dictation of that revelation thus back-dating it and raising suspicions that the account was fabricated. There is contemporary evidence that the polygamy revelation was obliquely referenced in the minutes of the high Council of Zion presided over by William Marks, but that evidence is considered weak and vague.
So the battle is joined mostly due to the weakness or absence or insufficiency of contemporary evidence that Joseph Smith personally practiced or personally authorized polygamy as a revelation from God.
This dispute, which has persisted for a number of years, reminds me of the dispute whether Mark Twain‘s novel, Huckleberry Finn, is racist or anti-racist. The novel has been banned and Twain denounced as racist by people based mostly on Twain’s repeated use of the N-word throughout the book. Those who see the novel as anti-racist justify his use of the offending word as essential to the novel’s scathing, satirical condemnation of racism.
What is the connection between the dispute whether Huckleberry Finn is racist or not and the dispute whether Joseph Smith was a polygamist or not? These disputes have several elements in common: a hidden assumption of or perhaps an obsession with purity supported by a myopic preference for trivialities over purpose and a lapse into judgmental moral presentism accompanied by an unsupportable assertion of mass conspiracy.
The condemnation of Twain and Smith novel are each predicated on the assumption that both novel and practice are impure. The impurity of Huckleberry Finn is assumed due to Twain’s repeated use of a demeaning expletive. The impurity of Smith’s polygamy is assumed because it departs from traditional and acceptable monogamy. These are narrow-minded reasons. Twain does not use the N-word to cast aspersions upon African-Americans. He uses it to create verisimilitude and authenticity and to satirize American racism. Likewise, there is nothing necessarily and implicitly impure about polygamy or even authoritarian or misogynistic about it, at least in its true sense of “many marriages.” Joseph Smith did not practice polygyny, as it was later practiced in Utah, which is the marriage of one husband simultaneously to more than one wife. Smith practiced polygamy, in its sense of many marriages in which some husbands had more than one wife, some wives had more than one husband, some marriages were possibly dynastic but not physical, others were both physical and spiritual, others may have been marriages only for this life, yet others for the afterlife. It is not clear or settled.
Objections to both Twain’s book and Smith’s practice seem prejudiced, judgmental, and self-righteous.
These negative assessments of both Twain and Smith seem to be sustained by myopic preferences for trivialities over larger purposes, by privileging present over past moral sensibilities, and by a belief in unsupportable conspiracy. In the case of Huckleberry Finn, Twain’s use of the N-word viewed myopically obscures his novel’s satirical narrative arc and purpose that mock American racism even as Twain dramatizes the metaphorical journey down the Mississippi in which young, white Huck realizes the equality of old black Jim, whom Huck comes to admire and love as a father who replaces the biological white, racist, drunkard father Huck once nearly murdered in his sleep. The notion that Twain’s novel is racist is sustainable only if one accepts a quasi conspiratorial view that ignores the entirety of the Twain corpus, including his Mysterious Stranger, his Letters From Earth, his 1901 essay The United States of Lyncherdom, and his biography of Joan of Arc.
In the case of Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy, the understandable abhorrence to his marriages to multiple women (a few in their teens and all probably without the consent of his first wife Emma) obscures polygamy’s cultural context within the early- and mid-19th century’s larger, radical marriage reforms advanced by luminaries such as Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, as Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley and Lord Byron, by the Oneida and Shaker communities, and by the Transcendentalists, to name a few; that abhorrence also obscures the possible ecclesiastical power of Smith’s polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, and its corollary, polytheism, permanently to estrange Mormon heterodoxy from Christian orthodoxy, thus rendering impossible for Mormonism both to defend polygamy as a revelation from God and also to be accepted as Christian religion by any denomination predicated upon the decisions of the first seven ecumenical councils. Finally, to believe Smith did not practice polygamy would require his devoted followers to have practiced it without his knowledge right under his nose and that such practice was later justified by Brigham Young’s fraudulent creation of fictitious supporting evidences such as William Clayton’s doctored journal, a fabricated Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and by pioneer women in Utah who had known Joseph Smith in Nauvoo and had been coerced into signing perjured or otherwise fabricated affidavits to the effect that Smith was a polygamist when in fact these women knew that he was not. Such a conspiracy would require the fraudulent involvement of hundreds and possibly thousands of 19th century Utah Mormons lying that Joseph Smith was a polygamist when either they knew he was not or didn’t know if he was or wasn’t. To sustain such an edifice of lies would require the complicity of people who had an unshakable allegiance to Joseph Smith as a prophet of the living God. It’s too much for me to believe in such co-ordinated mendacity that polygamy was practiced without Smith’s knowledge or authority by his own followers. It makes much more sense for me to believe as I have always supposed that in polygamy was a secret condoned and practice by Joseph Smith despite the paucity of contemporary documentary and testimonial evidence of his involvement.
Both Twain and Smith swam against the currents of their contemporary cultures by advancing two oddly paradoxical causes.
Thank you for your comment Paul. I enjoyed reading it, but I disagree. I would be interested to see what evidence you have to support your assumption that the only reason to be skeptical of Joseph Smith's polygamy is a misplaced presentist moral bias. Much could be said about this, but I will just say that, at least for myself, this is simply not the case. One can easily oppose polygamy and still believe Joseph Smith participated. Many people, including most post Mormons and anti Mormons, and even many active Mormons hold that view. One can easily be open to polygamy and still believe Joseph did not participate. This is a less common view, but I know several people who hold it.
I think feminist approaches to the question are also important to consider. I have come to strongly center Emma in the conversation and the study. It was actually studying Emma that persuaded me to believe that Joseph was not a polygamist and that she was telling the truth. I think it is inappropriate to claim that the harm to Emma if the polygamy narrative were true is either not actual harm, or is irrelevant because of the assumption that it is only people's modern sensibilities that would inspire them to morally object to polygamy.
The rest of your comment are explanations that I have heard many times before, and that I think are worthy of engagement, but none of this was the topic of this episode. I see your list of objections, but I don't think they are all accurate, and the ones that are I think are overshadowed by the list of objections on the other side.
In either case, Joseph's polygamy is a fascinating question that I strongly believe warrants much more work to be done. And, as fascinating as that discussion is, it is far from the only interesting and important aspect of polygamy. The Journal of Mormon polygamy will have a FAR broader focus than merely this one question, and will not center this question since it will not be polemic in nature. There are so many aspects to polygamy, and many that continue on in full force to this day.
The impacts of polygamy, both past and current, are massive and warrant research and discussion. All of the evidence on this topic needs further investigations, and most of the assumptions need to be re-examined. I think that is a very worthy pursuit. I hope you will continue to engage.
Thank you for your comment, Paul. I largely agree. And how I love your prose! e.g. "These disputes have several elements in common: a hidden assumption of or perhaps an obsession with purity supported by a myopic preference for trivialities over purpose and a lapse into judgmental moral presentism accompanied by an unsupportable assertion of mass conspiracy."
Lovely.
However, the question at hand is, are these conversations worth having? Is there enough ambiguity in the documentation to entertain possibilities we may not yet have considered? You seem to understand the difficulties on both sides.
How I would love for you to submit an article for consideration in our Journal!!
Maybe this scripture could be in the preface of the journal!!Doctor and Covenants 12:And again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them by the people of this State; 2 And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries, as well as real property; 3 And also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can get hold of them and find them out. 4 And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat; 5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom, and present the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality and nefarious and murderous impositions that have been practiced upon this people- 6 That we may not only publish to all the world, but present them to the heads of government in all their dark and hellish hue, as the last effort which is enjoined on us by our Heavenly Father, before we can fully and completely claim that promise which shall call him forth from his hiding place; and also that the whole nation may be left without excuse before he can send forth the power of his mighty arm. 7 It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity. 8 It is an iron yoke, it is a strong band; they are the very handcuffs, and chains, and shackles, and fetters of hell. 9 Therefore it is an imperative duty that we owe, not only to our own wives and children, but to the widows and fatherless, whose husbands and fathers have been murdered under its iron hand; 10 Which dark and blackening deeds are enough to make hell itself shudder, and to stand aghast and pale, and the hands of the very devil to tremble and palsy. 11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart- 12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it- 13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven- 14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness. 15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things. 16 You know, brethren, that a very large ship is benefited very much by a very small helm in the time of a storm, by being kept workways with the wind and the waves. 17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.
I agree with your position that it is far more logical that Joseph was part of the polygamy conspiracy for reasons I've already expressed.
If Joseph was untouched by polygamy and never dictated 132, why was he so quick to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor printing press?
You would think he would be eager to publicly combat the claims head on and proclaim his innocence once and for all.
Also why is it that Joseph held every major civic office in Nauvoo, was running for President of the United States, and insisted he dictate to his followers who to vote for in elections? When God told Joseph in D&C 24:9 that:
"And in temporal labors thou shalt not have strength, for this is not thy calling. Attend to thy calling and thou shalt have wherewith to magnify thine office, and to expound all scriptures, and continue in laying on of the hands and confirming the churches."
This is all evidence of abuse of authority near the end of his life that resulted in his early death.
Does this mean Joseph lost his priesthood keys???
No, it does not. Anymore than Moses did when God told him he was not to enter the promised land due to his transgressions.
Both Jesus and Joseph appeared to Emma in a vision before her death. This is proof to me that God forgave Joseph for his transgressions.
When I read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography I questioned why God could call immoral men to great positions. And then it hit me that our our position in life does not determine our righteousness.
Also fornication is a massive temptation to those in positions of power. Solomon, David, are but a few examples. But God still choose them.
I have no problem accepting that Joseph, Brigham, and others were highly flawed but still his prophets. Because I myself am highly flawed, and it gives me wiggle room to see how powerful Christ's atonement really is: The only perfect man on this earth.
I think your comparison with Mark Twain is poorly founded. It simply accepts the traditional narrative held by the collective Judas, and leapfrogs any other possible narrative straight to a critique of naivete.
So your point about _narrow minded reasons_ is lost on me because it is based on a fundamental level on condescension. In addition to this, it ultimately indicates that you, like Dan Vogel and other historians, are not yet willing to engage with Mrs Stone's critiques of the source material.
Please forgive me, but your treatment above of the narrative of Joseph's innocence as a common house fly addendum essentially betrays the fact that you haven't examined Miss Stones material authentically.
This narrative is older than all of us. It's old enough to be directly associated with Emma, Hyrum, and Lucy Mack, all of whom were present when Joseph was living. It's old enough to have produced the first major schism. So it is absolutely worth owning on a granular level.
If the narrative presented by Joseph's accusers (which you espouse) is so rock solid and undeniable, then how is it possible for anyone on this space rock to go back to the source material presented in the Joseph Smith papers series and continue to find additional evidence in support for the oldest opposing narrative?
This entire critique of the desire for purity is an ad hominem sideshow. Given the time to reflect, I'm sure you will arrive at the conclusion that it is an unworthy method for engaging on this topic.
Mrs Stone's treatment of the original source documents is becoming robust. You and others are simply unwilling to give her the time of day until there is enough inertia within your club to admit as much. On that front, her recent exclusion from symposia is the type of dismissive gatekeeping that always causes people with integrity (Bruno and Bradley, in this case) to subvert the established order.
The entire idea of _peer review_ underscores the fact that monologues are inferior to authentic dialogues. Don Bradley's point about visual parallax is a much more appropriate comparison on this matter, in my opinion.
If the intelligentsia is to be as deeply entrenched upon a hermetic perch as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and both of them use language that betrays a preference for fraternal order and dispersal over authentic dialogue, then what essential difference is there to be understood between them for a no-name, unaccredited layperson such as myself?
A much more pertinent question exists regarding Mrs Stone; when is she going to be engaged and treated like a mind instead of a mere MIA Maid?
Will you marry me, Michelle?
Nope. Women are worth more than being part of a harem,, and I'm not a fan of narcissists.
But thanks for asking.
😂@@MichelleBStone
@@MichelleBStone Alpha male and narcissism often go hand in hand. Just look at Donald Trump and Elon Musk to see that. And even Mitt Romney who has an elevator going from his garage to his kitchen.
And yet these same narcissists often hold the highest positions in society.
Not because they are better than everyone else but because they are a better fit and easily admired by the masses.
But I do not envy them though. I would rather live in a lowly fertile valley than on a high cold and barren mountain peak.
@@MichelleBStone continue to speak evil of me and see what happens. Trust me, it won’t be good for you 😁
@@jaredvaughan1665 Yes, this is true. And many of the high power narcissists are not faithful to their wife. Egocentric men in positions of power don't like limits, and don't believe they should be limited to "just one wife." That is the essence of polygamy -- a justified way for religious leaders to satisfy their narcissistic desire to overcome God's boundary of fidelity to their wife.
Grow up and stop your nonsense. You're no longer in good faith.
She is definitely in good faith. She believes in Jacob 2 more than any General Authority in the Church right now. It is they who need to catch up to her faith in the Book of Mormon.
She is a lot closer to the truth than those Church apologists who rationalize away Joseph's adulterous heart that inflicted much pain on his wife and descendants. Few of who believe he was a prophet. That is one of the many fruits of fornication.
I believe both Joseph and Brigham were prophets. But both were heavily flawed and succumbed to the deceptions of the flesh.
Michelle's faith is primarily in Jesus Christ. Someone we can count on to be perfect.
I see Michelle's message as half full. She fully sees Brigham's fallibility. She just cannot see Joseph's yet.
But the standard Church narrative cannot see either as being flawed. And rationalizes all of their actions, good or bad.
So yes, Michelle is certainly in good faith. And is doing a great work in restoring the message of the Book of Mormon which condemns all whoredoms, including polygamy.
@@jaredvaughan1665 does stupidity run in your family?
@@jaredvaughan1665 and yet DnC132 is STILL Doctrine.