Ok but there were no children from any other women and Joseph. If he practiced polygamy this is just unreasonable. This is the hardest evidence there is for this not being polygamy in the way we think about it
No it isn't. The evidence that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy is overwhelming and conclusive. At least seven women testified that they had sex with Smith. The possibility that Smith didn't produce any children with those women has no bearing on the evidence that he originated polygamy.
Yes! This is the hard evidence. What he had around 30 other wives and ZERO children. But 9 children with Emma Hale. This is the stark evidence that he is innocent of the claims against him.
So no children is synonym of no plural marriage. What about that no children is because he had no sex with the majority of the wives. And also do you think that you get pregnant a woman just for staring at her. The probability to get pregnant a woman having sex once or twice is not big.
So no children=no polygamy can you think that no children is because he had not sex with the majority of them and when he had sex was an unusual thing? Do you believe that Joseph can get them pregnant just having sex once?
Because the revisionists have, in their typical dishonest fashion, been claiming that President Hinckley said plural marriage "was not doctrinal" - in which they imply that he thought the teaching and practice was always wrong - here is the FULL section of the transcript where the subject is discussed, and not a selectively edited clip taken out of context by those attempting to deceive. As you can see, he was referring to those apostates who continued to practice polygamy against the teachings of the Church in the present day. NOT from the time of Joseph to the Manifesto... [Here the subject of polygamy is brought up] Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah - before we get back to morals and morals, is - the big story, if you don’t know it, is polygamy in Utah; there’s been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson - is the governor - of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it? Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale. Larry King: You could have a certain amount of… Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from - between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That’s 118 years ago. It’s behind us. Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right? Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don’t belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists. Larry King: Are you surprised that there’s, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah? Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don’t know how much it is. I don’t know how pervasive it is. Larry King: Should there be arrests? Gordon B. Hinckley: It’s matter of civil procedure. The church can’t do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever. Larry King: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it? Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It’s a civil offense. It’s in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We’re totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that’s a responsibility of civil officers. Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense? Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It’s outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church. Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying - they told “The Salt Lake Tribune” - that it’s difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem? Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it’s secretive. There’s a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty - they say they do, in gathering evidence. Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you’re forceful here tonight, but maybe - they’ve been saying that it’s rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute. Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know. We’ll consider it. Larry King: I’m giving you an idea. Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. Larry King: Would you look better if you were… Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know that we would or not. As far as I’m concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state. Larry King: You condemn it. Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. [Here the conversation changes to Christ in the Americas]
@@fightingfortruth9806 Exactly. But the revisionists keep posting simply that he said "it wasn't doctrinal" in order to misrepresent the facts and deceive others.
Perhaps doctrinal in the sense of divine command for a temporal condition, but not doctrinal in the sense that it’s part of eternal law. Personally I think we should avoid the use of the word “doctrine” as for many it connotes Divine Law - but it’s clear Hinckley views this as a temporary commandment. It’s an interpretation to assume this is carried into the divine order celestially.
Its interesting how the church is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand he did practice polygamy, had up to 40 wives one as young as 14, married wives while their husbands served missions, married pregnant women to then seal those children to him and then on the other hand you have people that want to believe he didn't practice polygamy to make church history more digestible however if you believe he didn't practice polygamy that means D&C 132 with forged, apostles were corrupted, and Brigham Young either made it up or further corrupted it. Both places leave the church in a hard spot.
Notice how Jacob is giddy about the Nauvoo high council meeting, but leaves out that Joseph and Hyrum were specifically asked about this meeting and what was given as revelation and shared. They explained that the revelation was in answer to scenarios similar to Levirate marriage and that any reference to polygamy was regarding past times and not current day. This completely corroborates what Joseph taught on July 16th, 1843 and what Hyrum taught in April 1844. He also clarifies that Cowles and Law are being deceptive and are turning Gods truth into a lie. These are contemporary statements that follow a completely consistent pattern that the Smiths followed to their death. Not decades late affidavits, many of which are under motivated circumstances. So, who’s cherry picking?
This isn't the win you think it is. For a long time, Michelle claimed that Joseph and Hyrum's responses to the meeting were "fake" and "untrustworthy." Now she acknowledges their reality and interprets their responses to mean exactly what they say. Interesing how Joseph and Hyrum give different answers that allude to things involved in D&C 132. Almost as if they were telling partial truths in pursuit of still keeping it confidential. The fact they gave different answers and that the answers were those, it is very safe to draw the conclusion that D&C 132 was the revelation and they were trying to keep it confidential for the time being. This is not the win you guys think it is. Y'all just have to interpret it that way now that y'all have acknowledge the validity of Joseph and Hyrum's responses. Keep coping mormon protestants LOL.
@@PresidentBrighamYoung "..but what there may be some among you who are not sufficiently skilled in Masonry as to keep a secret,.."-Joseph Smith addressing the subject with the Relief Society
Brian, what do priesthood keys have to do with polygamy and why does a view of Joseph-Smith-as-a-monogamist destroy faith in current leaders and their priesthood keys?
If Joseph wasn’t a polygamist, then he did indeed condemn all forms of polygamy. Which means that section 132 would be a forgery. Which would also imply that all the apostles were evil liars and adulterers which would mark them as apostates to God. They could not hold and pass down their priesthood and keys of authority because they had lost it. Which means the current church and leaders would have no authority. Do you see a way around this conclusion?
@@bilagaana1238yes, Brigham was fully convinced that polygamy was of God. I think him putting it on Joseph, saying it was taught by Joseph to convince others to believe it was not him thinking he was lying and deceiving but he was doing a good thing because it was for a greater cause for others to practice it and receive exaltation. Brigham taught that to receive eternal life you must have plural wives… other prophets and leaders were handed down this teaching and they believed it. That’s how false traditions/teachings happen. It doesn’t have to be the church is fallen and all is lost. God has a way of course correcting his children and his church. “No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing” We are no longer taught that polygamy is the way to receive exaltation. President Hinckley even said on Larry King Live “polygamy is not doctrinal” so was he lying??? It can be corrected just like all the other things Brigham taught that have now been denounced.
Notice how the revisionists don't even say, "While I don't think Joseph practiced plural marriage, or practiced it differently, I believe Brigham Young and other successors were also prophets so they were following the Lord's will." Nope. Their go-to conclusion is Brigham and many other prophets and apostles were so clueless, so bad, and so out of touch with the Lord that they essentially taught and practiced what they see as institutionalized adultery for decades. This shows plural marriage itself is really the issue for them. It has nothing to do with what Joseph did or did not do. That's just so they can feign loyalty to him and the Restoration while crapping on everyone else. If something came out where they could no longer deny Joseph's involvement in plural marriage, they'd throw him under the bus just as quickly as they have Brigham. Much like the Proclamation on the Family, one's view of Brigham Young's prophetic mantle is quickly become a real sifter in the Church. Every single prophet and apostle up to the present has maintained the principle of plural marriage began with Joseph. But the revisionists think they know better. And they have to rewrite history and misinterpret (or throw out) scripture in order to maintain their false narrative.
I think most would admit that it’s the doctrine of eternal plural marriage that’s concerning. Jared, I mentioned this to you before, but I think it’s worth restating here. The current practice, where a man can be sealed to multiple women but a woman can only be sealed to one man, does present emotional and psychological challenges, especially in situations involving remarriage today. There’s an inequality here. Is this doctrine or policy? Is this divine law or man’s misinterpretation? In Jacob 2:30, the idea of raising up seed is given as the primary justification for polygamy. Let’s grant this interpretation for the sake of argument. If we charitably assume that it’s about fostering a covenantal environment for children, it still feels very much tied to the conditions of a fallen, mortal world where such structures might help navigate complex social and spiritual challenges to protect covenant people from being overwhelmed by outside forces. Isn’t it fair to recognize that these same burdens would not be imposed in a celestial realm? In modern practice, the ability of a man to be sealed to multiple women seems more tied to policy than to a clear doctrinal explanation that would necessitate plural marriage in the afterlife. The idea of sealings in eternity seems more focused on ensuring that family connections are preserved, and current teachings emphasize that all such matters will be resolved justly by God. I think this aligns very much with Joseph’s teachings. There’s a lot of uncertainty regarding how these relationships will be structured in the hereafter. Even Church leaders have often expressed that we don’t know exactly how things will work, but that the justice and mercy of God will ensure that everything is done fairly and lovingly. There may still be lingering asymmetries as a result of the earthly practice of polygamy. Providing more flexibility for sealings in life, accompanied by an emphasis on faith in God’s ability to sort everything out in eternity would relieve individuals of the burden of having to make difficult choices now, trusting that divine wisdom will provide solutions that meet everyone’s needs, including the concerns about children and blended families.
I've seen you post this before and I agree. As big a critic as I am of the revisionists, people might be surprised to know that I tend to think when all is said and done that eternal marriage will be after the pattern of Adam and Eve - one man and one woman. Plural marriage is a tool the Lord has used at times throughout history to establish the Covenant among imperfect people in a fallen world. The sealings today seem to be done in such a way that the links are in place regardless of what is ultimately decided hereafter. Finally, one can recognize the challenge plural marriage was then, or the way sealings are done now, without rewriting history or throwing out scripture, which is what the revisionists are doing.
1:32:45 Just Finished. Thank you both for sharing the mainline believing narrative and for detailing where those who believe the words and claims of both Joseph and Emma. I understand it’s bitter and antagonistic to the message of the Book of Mormon which Joseph claimed to be the most correct book on earth. As problematic as this issue seems to be for the church and its leadership, it’s a fair concern and worthy of further investigation.
For those that have concluded that polygamy is not of God from scripture...an argument that Joseph was practicing polygamy is an argument that the church founder was practicing an "abominable" practice. Then the task becomes to discover what other things Joseph got wrong. Im curious what you feel is more damaging...believing that the church founder was in apostasy...or his successor?
@dr33776 why because it doesn't fit anti's propaganda that Joseph wasn't a prophet. Historical events and first hand accounts that aren't tainted by an axe to grind against Joseph Smith overwhelmingly show Joseph Smith was a true prophet of Jesus Christ.
@@dr33776 Brother Dr33776, have you noticed how often "the intellectually challenged" begin their arguments with phrases like "for the intellectually challenged"?
I have purchased Brian’s Joseph Smith’s Polygamy and am in the middle of reading it. I learned of it through reading some of Don Bradley’s research. I watched Michelle Stone interview Brian. In Michelle Stone I have never seen anything closer to flat earther logic and outright denial when it comes to the historical record. Brian has done the most complete historical examination and gives as clear of picture as possible that Joseph Smith introduced and practiced polygamy. Brian’s work on polygamy has been fascinating and is first class historic scholarship.
@@Hmcc0712 Michelle’s logic is inane. If what Michelle says is correct then Joseph Smith was a fraud from day one; every prophet that followed Joseph Smith is a fraud; all of the BofM is a fraud, all of the D&C is a fraud. Michelle is focused in on a very narrow set of historical data points that can be interpreted several ways. Michelle believes her way is the only way to interpret the historical record. Her way is obviously not the only way and because of the logical inconsistencies it’s highly probable her way is wrong. There is mental illness in fixating on one solution to the exclusion of all others. Fixation is a mind closing phenomena that inhibits finding truth. The multiple lines of inquiry with respect to the many many doctrines Joseph Smith taught that are unique, across all religious concepts set him apart as either a genius in his own right or as being infused with genius from God making it highly doubtful Joseph Smith is a fraud. But you don’t need to go down all these avenues of religious doctrine that Joseph opened, you need only to seek knowledge of truth through the Holy Ghost. For anyone who has been imbued with divine knowledge through the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith is a prophet, the Michelle Stones, Lori Vallows, and dozens of other who think they have figured out some unknown truth are side shows of fixation on a narrow concept that will never be verified in the arena of human inquiry.
51:57 Yes Brigham and his followers won so hard in that case when the judge ruled against them, in favor of the RLDS church’s claim that Joseph Smith did not originate polygamy… It is not true to say that the RLDS church admits Joseph was a polygamist. It was one liberal RLDS historian (who never represented anyone other than himself) who thought Joseph was a polygamist for reasons that are weak and had already been debunked for generations by others.
Joseph's GG Grandson who was a progressive Marxist and potentially gay began their rejection of the fullness. Young rejected the fullness after he staged a KU DE TA and wacked the Brothers Smith so he could he could have a nesting ground for his criminal and trafficking empire.
So you trust the government/and a gentile court to know the mind and will of God. The Roman Court also ruled that Jesus Christ was not the messiah and had him killed. According to your logic, Jesus Christ wasn’t the son of God because a “court” said so!
43:03 why were plural marriage sealing supposedly happening in 1842 if D&C 132 wasn’t given until 1843? Why did Joseph have to be commanded by an angel with a flaming sword to practice plural marriage if he was so afraid to practice it after it was revealed in 1843, oh wait, he was already doing it? This makes no sense
Truly the timeline is nonsensical. But Brigham had to show the US Govt that his polygamy was started by Joseph, that it existed at the formation of the Church and a significant percentage of members lived it. Thus the sudden surge of polygamy when Brigham introduced Section 132, 8 years AFTER the martyrdom. Essentially, 132 is more like the Salamander letter than any of Joseph's plain and simple revelations from the Lord, like 25, or 121 for example.
Section 132 was asked for in connection with specific circumstances. specifically it was asked for in relation to Emma Smith in response to what was going on with these matters at that time. As noted many things in it were previously revealed. This is pretty well documented. If not mistaken, the Joseph Smith Papers has information on this if you care to reference source documents.
@@jojr5145 "As noted many things in it were previously revealed. This is pretty well documented." There is zero documentation for this, only post hoc puzzle fitting, with people trying incessantly to jam polygamy-shaped pieces into a puzzle where they clearly don't fit.
Exactly! Oh how people love to gloss over the fact that Joseph was found innocent of the crime of polygamy in a court of law. The parts of that case I’ve seen so far show just how ridiculously unreliable those witnesses of his polygamy really were. I really need to read the rest-popcorn at the ready.
@@cranzag No one was accusing Joseph Smith of practicing celestial plural marriage. It may seem like I'm parsing words, but we must rise above our presentism to put the event in accurate historical context.
@@mcable217, the very use of "celestial plural marriage" is a form of presentism itself. That was not the term used in Nauvoo. Scripturally, it's the "doctrine of having many wives and concubines", but in Nauvoo it wasn't even that yet. It was "spiritual wives" or "spiritual wifery". It wasn't until the Brigham/Utah era that the Saints started coming up with other names for it.
Question for both of you. Remove Joseph from the equation, do you believe that members of the church who don’t believe in polygamy are in apostasy and should be disciplined? If so, how do you reconcile that with those who did not believe in the priesthood ban and pushed back on it, despite the leaders teaching that it was from God? Turns out the “priesthood ban deniers” were right and church leaders were teaching false doctrine and a false narrative for almost 130 years. Sure, some holdouts may still think the ban is from God but the church has disavowed all of the past reasons for it and has had to essentially acknowledge that it did not come from Joseph and did not come by revelation.
@Commenter2121 I still think it is possible it was from God, it is not the first time that God has withheld the priesthood on the base of lineage, only levites could hold the priesthood in Moses time.
@@ignaciodelgado889 Introducing the priesthood to one group before others is a lot different than giving it to everyone except one restricted group based on ideas that are now disavowed as false. I’d highly encourage you to read Second Class Saints and/or Let’s Talk about Race and Priesthood. It’s extremely clear that the ban came from Brigham and God had nothing to do with it.
@Commenter2121 How is it different? The Gentiles had to wait thousands of years or be circumcised to receive the blessings of the Covenant. The Old testament Example is even more restrictive than the LDS Church Hiistory example.
@@ignaciodelgado889 Do you believe in Brighams explanation of the curse of Cain, or Orson Pratts idea of a lack of valiance in the pre existence? Do you believe that an interracial couple and their child should voluntarily have their blood spilt as a blood atonement for their sin? Just be careful of what you’re defending, this is the definition of using Gods name in vain.
The Church isn't triggered. No, they're not literally walking around like an emperor with no clothes on, because too many have called out the "nakedness" of the "Joseph Smith is an adulterer/lech/pedophile/whoremonger" argument. Brian wasn't ordered by his handlers to put out another completely worthless video (which doesn't tackle any current evidence) per his handlers.😂 Nope.
@@ImogeneBettr What are you talking about? Can't Joseph Smith's reputation remain intact whether or not he practiced polygamy? I believe so. In fact, there is so much misinformation and disinformation out there when most people that spew supposed church history just regurgitate things they don't know and are not willing to say 'I don't know'. Michelle is one of these in my opinion.
@ImogeneBettr what polygamist men? Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints currently don't practice polygamy as far as I know. Am I missing something?
I have never had a problem with polygamy. Whether it was practiced or not doesn't matter to me. But one question that keeps bugging me. There are all these women that claim to be married to Joseph, but not one of them produced a child with Joseph Smith. So what exactly was Joseph "practicing?"
Some form of birth control, and it is only my opinion but I think he practiced this birth control to try and keep Emma from blowing her top completely. Maybe Joseph knew Emma would divorce him, and perhaps she would lose her exaltation. The minds of men can be difficult to understand, but these types of considerations do happen.
@raddiemutto7934 I think it was more along the lines of following what the Lord told him to do while also trying to keep Emma happy by being sealed to other women but not having sexual relationships with them. I only think that because it sounds like the way I would try to deal with the problem 😅.
@2:35 “The way that you go about determining if that happened is through methods of historical analysis” Yes Jacob, that is exactly how it is done. Accompanied by prayer and seeking the Spirit. That method of historical analysis looks at all the evidence from all points of view. I have seen Brian on multiple interviews including his one with Michele Stone. Brian’s approach is strictly faith based as he even commented and implied that since this is the official position of the church, anyone going against it should be disciplined as an apostate. Brian leaves out an insurmountable pile of historical evidence while he refuses to even consider that maybe, just maybe it was not Joseph Smith that was lying for the Lord in all of his consistent polygamy denials and open efforts to rid the church of this scourge, it was Brigham Young who was lying for the devil. When you look at this issue honestly and not from the perspective that Joseph was the liar and deceiver but it was Brigham, the historical evidence is absolutely conclusive. It was Brigham who lied, it was Brigham who altered documents, it was Brigham who sought to destroy Emma and the Smith Family who knew the truth. It was Brigham who manufactured evidence including the never before heard of D&C 132 that replaced Joseph’s D&C 101 on monogamy. Just read D&C 132, it is so full of errors and paints a picture of a god that views his daughters as little more than property. That was Brigham’s view of women, not Joseph’s who loved his wife nor was it the view of the God that I worship who would never subject his daughters to this evil abomination. This is not just historical, this is deeply theological as who could worship a god who views women in the manner that Brigham Young taught.
@@davidmaughan4472 D&C 121 answers that question. I think it is the most difficult issue that the Lord has to deal with in his church. Many are called, few are chosen. I know our Father weeps and mourns as a result of the terrible conseques that result from the sinful choices that those who have been called to serve in his church make. When the Lord said that "It is the nature and disposition of almost all men", it was not divine hyperbole. I believe this is precisely why Nephi taught us to never put our trust in man. In fact, he said we are cursed if we do. Forgive errant leaders, yes. But we must end the practice of excusing them. Recall that in 3 Nephi Christ taught that there will be true and false prophets. He did not say that it was by their priesthood ordination that we could discern the difference. It was by their fruits. See 3 Nephi 14:15-23 King David was called as was Judas.
Unfortunately, this episode was disappointing at best. It is clear from the recent flurry of videos of those advocating Joseph practiced polygamy that they are not on solid ground and are desperately trying to keep their house of cards up when the man behind the curtain has already been revealed. Both sides of the debate can make compelling arguments from the available evidence. Thus, relying upon the historical record alone to find the truth of whether Joseph practiced polygamy or not is foolish. I believe the BofM had something to say about that-cursed are those who put their trust in man or make flesh their arm. No one should be trusting what men or women had or have to say on the issue. It is “good” to be “learned” only when one hearkens to the counsel of God. The counsel of God can be found in the scriptures and His messengers’ words. The historical record on this issue must be looked at through the lens of the scriptures and what His messenger Joseph said and taught. An honest look at the evidence (both scriptural and historical) will show to the seeker of truth that the polygamy narrative pinned on Joseph just doesn’t hold water and that there is clearly something amiss going on. The scriptures revealed through Joseph clearly condemn polygamy, especially the Book of Mormon, which Joseph said was the most “correct” book on earth. The loophole in Jacob 2:30 has been debunked thoroughly and disagrees with the BofM itself. Joseph never corrected the BofM on its polygamy condemnation, and continued to publish it throughout his life, and even wrote “one wife” in his own personal copy at the polygamy section in Jacob. There is no evidence at all that Joseph ever said or taught the words “celestial plural marriage” (not found at all in the JSP) and that is not a proper or honest distinction to use between Joseph’s “denials.” Joseph and Hyrum specifically condemned “polygamy” and “spiritual wives”. The denial portion of the episode failed to directly mention the Hiram Brown case. Hales’ denial paper does bring up the case of Hiram Brown, but fails to actually quote what both Hyrum and Joseph wrote about it - “Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity.” This is unequivocal. Polgamy by definition would include any form, sanctioned or not, of a man taking many wives (celestial plural marriage, spiritual wifery, plurality of wives, etc.). The episode states that there is not one dissenting voice that spilled the beans. Yet Brigham Young himself spilled the beans and dissented from the established narrative when in 1874 he stated the Lord revealed to him the doctrine of polygamy while on his mission to England. This is only one of Brigham’s changing stories about its introduction to him. BY’s own teachings and practice of polygamy go against the BofM. Another dissenter, Charles Derry, who was a Brighamite Mormon, left Utah, joined the RLDS Church, and in his autobiography stated “Joseph F. Smith says the ‘revelation on polygamy’ was given at different times. William W. Phelps says he wrote part of it, also that Brigham and Joseph wrote part, and that Clayton wrote a part. While Clayton swears that he wrote it all, Brigham says ‘Phelp’s lies’” (p. 397). “The Basis of Brighamite Polygamy” by Jason Briggs, p. 8 confirms with a second witness by stating “the process of this shaping [the creation of D&C 132] was given some years since, upon the stand in this city, by W. W. Phelps, as follows: ‘We were some ten or twelve days in writing it-I wrote some of it.’” This shows a claim that the D&C 132 revelation took 10 to 12 days to write and Phelps wrote a part of it. This would also accord with Phelps’ practice of fabricating another polygamy revelation-the Lamanite polygamy revelation Phelps wrote to BY in 1861. The episode relied upon Clayton’s July 12, 1843 journal entry. However, Hales explicitly admits that the Clayton journals were “re-copied”. Any honest historian or seeker of truth must then admit that Clayton’s journals cannot be reliable as we don’t know what the original entries were or if he added or deleted stuff or even when he copied them. The episode tried to corroborate Clayton’s entry by quoting Joseph Smith’s journal entry for the same date. However, they failed to explain how JS’s journal was actually kept by Willard Richards for that entry. Richards was writing BY daily entries in a couple letters from July 7 to Aug. 23 1843. Richards wrote nothing to BY about a revelation on July 12. In fact, Richards wrote that the revelation was on July 29 and that he had not seen it. This shows that the JS journal entry was not written until at least July 29 or perhaps much later. The episode failed to also note the inconsistencies and historical problems with Clayton’s July 12 entry. Why believe what Ebenezer Robinson said in 1888 about what he said Hyrum taught him, when we have Hyrum’s actual contemporaneous words that contradict and go against what Robinson said? Hyrum’s May 14, 1843 and April 9, 1844 sermons condemn not only the practice of polygamy but the teaching of it, even if from an angel - directly contradicting Robinson. It is not good historical practice or common sense to reject contemporaneous and direct evidence in favor of secondary evidence given decades and decades later. The episode quotes from people, both followers of Brighamite Mormonism and not, about the August 12, 1843 High Council Meeting. There was confusion expressed on why people who didn’t practice polygamy or follow BY would lie-such as Leonard Soby or Austin Cowles. It is baffling how the presenters failed to mention what Hyrum Smith (and Joseph) himself said about it and the revelation, especially since he is the one who shared the revelation with the council. In the June 10, 1844 Nauvoo City council minutes, it is recorded for Hyrum: “spoke to show the falsehood of Austin Cowles in relation to the revelation referred to- that it referred to former days [and] not the present time as stated by Cowles. Mayor said he had never preached the revelation in private as he had in public - had not taught it to the anointed in the Church in private which many confirmed.” Here Hyrum and Joseph show Cowles is a liar. In addition, Hyrum says the revelation referred to “former days” and “not the present time”. Extremely clear that the revelation that was read did not refer to D&C 132 which clearly has stuff about the present time. The monogamy deniers have yet to provide a good answer to this. Joseph’s statement also clearly contradicts the many statements made later (especially by the anointed ones) that Joseph taught them the revelation in private. How is it that the statements, scriptures, and sources from Joseph and Hyrum themselves about polygamy are clear and consistent (always against it), but that the Brighamites, traitors, apostates, historians, and others are the ones that have to change their words (sermons, journal entries, articles, teachings, etc.), and edit, clarify, introduce caveats, perform mental gymnastics, etc. to make their narrative work? When God sends one or two of his servants with a clear and unmistakable message, it always takes a chorus of naysayers to drown out the truth - hence the many voices needed to go against Joseph’s scriptures, teachings, sermons, etc. that condemn polygamy. “He condemned the principle in toto & warned those present against going into those evils, for they would surely bring a -- (Curse) upon their heads” JSP Documents, Vol. 13, p. 285
Dude, no one is going to read your response in here, because it is too long and because they are protestant style proof texting of the past that is not convincing. This video goes deep into the evidence, your message is just your opinion that is not as convincing. Have a proper conversation with some of these experts like this video, and perhaps you would not waste so much time by typing long sections that no one will read fully. And besides, Jacob "loophole" in the Book of Mormon has not been debunked, I have heard the argument and it is pathetic, appeals to special pleading. Also Abraham had many wives and concubines to whose children he gave gifts as they departed, but Iisac inherited everything. The law of Moses even legislated polygamy practise. Nothing in your rant deals with these facts convincingly.
D&C 132 was printed publicly by the first President of the LDS on June 7 1844, Joseph Smith had that press burnt. All of Joseph's denial's have loopholes typically "keys" or "yet to be revealed" it is the need for loopholes that is the education. Hiram Brown practiced polygamy WITHOUT Keys, thus he was cut off.
So how do you explain "if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;" line in jacob 2:30 if it's only condemning polygamy?
Finally some clarity. No one discusses the elephant in the room. Thanks for clarifying the obvious. Yes, if Joseph was not a polygamist then those men who followed Joseph were not prophets, but lied. If Joseph was a polygamist and just lied about it, his whole life, then the church is protected sort of. Just throw Joseph under the bus and all is well. It really is a mess. One side says Joseph took other men's wives and fourteen year old wives and the other side says, no he did not have any wives but Emma, but the church is true. The wisdom of Solomon is lacking I think.
How about we simply quit throwing fig leaves on the history and Brigham Young etc. We can trust the power and grace of God to work through the mess created by the polygamists--which did not include Joseph Smith.
The issue I've seen with polygamy deniers is that they are emotionally invested in believing Joseph wasn't a polygamist as in he can't possibly be a prophet if he was so their testimonies hinge on a false hope of history. I've even been screamed at by people for saying George Washington had slaves because some regard the founding fathers as inspired as the prophets.
You are not the only one with a completely closed mind on this issue, Brother Murph. Though it is obvious that people like Brothers Jacob and Brian really, really wish those who believe and sustain the prophet Joseph, and the Book of Mormon prophet, Jacob (in Ch. 2-3), and the Lord (whom Jacob directly quotes in those chapters)--when each of them condemned polygamy as an abomination--would also just close their minds . . .
@jonterry9843 you are choosing to ignore verse 30, which reads: "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." (Jacob 2:30) Also, look at the last half of Jacob 2:25 "...I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph" Why the loins of Joseph? By definition of polygamy haters, his very existence would be an abomination to the Lord. He was, after all, the first son of Jacob's second wife, Rachel.
You’ve also refused to actually engage with arguments from the other side. I’m sorry but your reasoning has been an appeal to authority. You’re a smart guy that generally seems open to asking hard questions, I hope that at some point you’ll be willing to put in the time. How many more of these Brian Hales interviews do we need? Have Michelle on again, or Whitney Horning, or Jeremy Hoop.
This is not a debunking. It’s repeating the same old info and does not address any of the recent claims raised by those questioning the accepted narrative. That’s why it doesn’t hit.
At his 100th birthday event, Pres. Nelson referred to his deceased wife Danzel and his devotion to her, and then referred to the blessing of his current wife, Wendy, and called her his "eternal companion". Everyone knows what that likely means, which to me sounds quite beautiful, although I certainly don't advocate polygamy and agree that monogamy is the norm.
@@maskofscience Brigham taught celestial marriage is required for exhaltation, which is the same now. Plural marriage was a specific command for a period of time that lasted 50 years, for the purpose of "raising up seed" in the desert mountains where the saints had fled. Not everyone was permitted to practice it. It allowed the church to build a foundation of families on which to thrive. Hundreds of thousands of missionaries resulted from that foundation. There have been other time limited practices in other dispensations, such as animal sacrifice, circumcision, restricted diet, etc. There are also multiple citations from past prophets and apostles that monongamous couples would also be exhalted.
@@lemjwp1756 Polygamy and "many wives and concubines" is ALWAYS a whoredom. Section 132 takes Jesus Christ from being the Chief Cornerstone and gives Gods glory to man. Hmmm, reminds me of someone elses plan...
@@lemjwp1756 The Church survived in SPITE of polygamy, not because of it. D&C132 is a fake, salamander letter filled with false doctrine denying the power of Christ unto salvation. Thus, the Church and its historians or "scribes" have taken Jesus Christ out of the Chief Cornerstone and instead inserted Section 132 and modern prophets. But not to worry, we still for sure worship Christ--or is it now the Temple and the "Covenant Path?" The Book of Mormon tells us to repent--what is he talking about? We tend to see ourselves as the hero of the Allegory of the Olive Tree and all the good revelations--but not God. And surely we cannot be who God is talking to when he is chastising--that's those nonmember gentiles that don't have The Book of Mormon--right?
“There were only three classes that followed Brigham Young to Utah: knaves, fools, and those whose circumstances and environments compelled them to go.” - Emma Smith, as quoted by Edmund Briggs
@@ThomasFackrell it is no secret that Emma was bitter after Joseph’s death. That she didn’t understand the proper order of succession is a testament to her faith in Joseph, but her complete lack of faith in God.
@@johngrant2196 Brother johngrant, neither you nor I could hold a candle to Emma Smith's wonderful faith in God or her noble discipleship. Be careful of whose name you casually slander.
Great podcast… I appreciate all the work you have done in this area. I’ve never felt the church was trying to “hide” anything… they just focused on where we were today… I’m glad they were quick to publish essays
Actually, Brother Cameron, the real "naysayers" are those who say "Nay" to Joseph Smith when he, without exception, testified he was faithful to his ONE and ONLY ONE dear wife, Emma; and "Nay" to the prophet Jacob (in CH. 2-3), when he unequivocally condemned polygamy as an abomination; and "Nay" to the Lord, whom the prophet Jacob quotes in those chapters that condemn polygamy.
@@stephanielibbert1668 It has nothing to do with being an apologist for polygamy; it's a matter of not denying the actual documented history. Deniers are revisionists.
I forgive the punitive labels. Good people, with great scholarship, willing to post their content online for free, have skillfully exonerated Joseph Smith's character of the false allegations of polygamy. To say polygamy of God, is blaspheming His name as well. Brian Hales charges a lot for his books of historical fiction. Brian and the Church historians are leaning on name calling and authority, rather than evidence.
@lemjwp1756 well, the fact that BY admits in his journals to rewriting the early history of the church is actual evidence that the church has an inaccurate narrative.
The reason for this is simple: If troo believing Mormons admit that Smith started polygamy, they'll also have to admit that he was a liar, an adulterer, and a hypocrite. These "Joseph Smith polygamy deniers" don't want to give up their adoration of Smith, so they go into a state of intellectual denial.
My own family history, including an anti Mormon book written by an ancestor because Joseph was a polygamist, has Joseph as a polygamist. My gggg aunt was one of Joseph’s wives. Honestly, I am no lover of polygamy, but the movement to make JS a non polygamist has so many implications that are not good about our churches standing as the church with priesthood authority. Our current prophet is a polygamist. I am just….I can’t believe the push to change our history.
@rebeccabaca2909, why are you not a lover of polygamy? If it is, as Brigham Young taught, the economy of heaven and necessary for exaltation and monogamy is a corrupt practice of man and the cause of fornication - why don't you love and defend God's law? This is perhaps the most remarkable part of the pro-polygamy movement. So many express disdain for what they believe is God's highest law of marriage. Do you believe it or don't you?
@@GaryLArnell you can believe something is true but not be the biggest fan of it. My wife thinks the endowment ceremony is weird and uncomfortable but she believes it to be inspired of God. Just because she has had a negative personal reaction to it doesn’t negate it’s truthfulness
@@GaryLArnell Plural marriage is a tool the Lord has used at times throughout history to establish His covenant among imperfect people in a fallen world. If everyone had kept the commandments and remained within the Patriarchal Order from the beginning, there would have never been a need. But that obviously didn't happen. For my part, I do think eternal marriage will ultimately be after the pattern of Adam and Eve, i.e. one man and one woman. But that doesn't change the facts here and now or mean there aren't exceptions in mortality.
@@GaryLArnellYou have beef with me Gary? Do you not believe I was Joseph Smith’s rightful successor? As I said to Almon Babbitt back in the day, I repeat to you Gary: You are shitting in my ditch, and I will lick it out and you too!”
I am truely trying to sort this out so please help me understand; just because there is more data on one side than the other doesn't necessarily mean the claim is true. Doesn't context surrounding the event and motive of the person making the record matter more? The data and the people responsible for the data need to be put on trial and cross examined before "the truth" can be known. Unfortunately the people who were actually involved are no longer with us so how can this issue ever be resolved? I agree that just because something is recorded late doesn't necessarily make it unreliable or automatically make it a lie or an attempt to cover up or justify a sinful practice. Also how can polygamy be scriptually be justified? What is accomplished by it ? I am not trying to be antagonistic. I am sincerely trying to sort this out.
@@StandforTruth712 absolutely. I agree. The context for D&C 132 definitely shows it to be a revelation from the 1840s and not one created by BY in the 1850s. Context is key
20:08 @@samuelmoon3051 My questions are not being made to make an argument in support of polygamy deniers. It's a sincere question I have in trying to come to the the truth. I am not ready to dismiss 132 yet.
@@StandforTruth712 I don't think it is necessary for any one person to have more than 1 wife to become exhalted. I do believe being married is required though and I have a hard time believing that the ratio of people eligible for exaltation is going to be exactly 1:1 between males and females. Resulting in the need of some level of polygamy.
Plural marriage in Church history is a such a blessing-it is a filter that apostates use to filter themselves out. Then many end up coming back. Plural marriage is also how God sent an amazing concentration of the the best souls to the earth to establish His kingdom and build Zion. To argue against it is to follow one's own agenda-not God's.
Indeed. Also, in hindsight one can see how the practice helped to keep the Church separate and distinct from apostate Christianity. Look at the state of the RLDS/Community of Christ now. They rejected the practice at the time, they've all but lost their identity, and are now essentially a strange liberal Christian sect with no real ties to the Restoration.
My wife can no longer bear children. I would like to have many more. Why am I being denied the ability to have more biological children? You do understand that in terms of population our church is still on the small side. We are told the church is still being restored, and many additional truths will come forth. So I don't understand your argument on why God started polygamy, but then stopped it. The manifesto seems to indicate it was stopped because of pressure from the United States government - those pressures don't seem to exist anymore.
@@raddiemutto7934 Nothing says bogus Christian theology like buckling to government pressure Imagine if Jesus and the apostles abandoned their ministry because the government threatened them lol
@@HeIljumper I wouldn't say early Church leaders abandoned their ministry. In general after their appeals to the government failed, they fought back pretty hard, even to the point of walking thousands of miles, and many dying to escape the oppression. They did leave the United States to try and keep their religion pure. Don't judge other men too harshly - we are indeed imperfect. There is no denying early LDS leaders were true believers.
@@davidmaughan4472 no, Michelle _used_ to think polygamy was of God, and put a lot of work into showing it by the scriptures, but the deeper she looked, the clearer it became that polygamy is not of God
Now that you all have invested the time into this video, you owe it to yourselves to watch Karen Hyatts video title Woe Unto You, Scribes. I will challenge you to watch that video and not at least admit that some aspects of our polygamy narrative need to be revisited.
Thank you so much - that is exactly the point of the video: to show that there is another side of the story that has been hidden from us for far too long. Not to argue, just to present information.
This is incredible. If I've got this straight... NOT OK: "Joseph couldn't have been a polygamist, because it would call his prophetic calling into question." TOTALLY OK: "Joseph couldn't have been a monogamist, because it would call Brigham's prophetic calling into question." Incredible. The craziest part is that just about every "denier" I personally know believed for years or decades that Joseph WAS a polygamist, and they put that awful thing on the altar, trusting in God that this "doctrine" would make sense at some point. They've only changed their perspective because of increased understanding, because of the documents and the scriptures - not because it suddenly became unpalatable. That should not need to be defended. Let's not let the fear of "ramifications" cloud our ability to entertain alternate possibilities. And, for heaven's sake, let's allow people to express their belief that Joseph was telling the truth without resorting to accusations of motivated reasoning.
This is why it is so important to get your own witness of the book of mormon and Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost! This is a non issue for me. I asked God about polygamy, my answer was that it has to do with spiritual lineage. Joseph Smith is the Prophet of this dispensation, and those same keys are held by President Nelson today.
@@jaredshipp9207 Well, I sustain all of them, and I think if they get some things wrong, they will be judged for it. I would say most people looking for things that are wrong in the church are suffering something out of their control and looking for relief in a way out. That's my opinion.
You said it very well. The Holy Ghost reveals the truth of this and all things. It's not complicated. I also asked God and He answered very clearly. But you can't convince those who won't be convinced.
I don't understand your comment about spiritual lineage. How are you defining spiritual lineage, and how does that relate to polygamy? God at different times has spoken peace to my soul about polygamy also, but it never included any specifics.
@@raddiemutto7934 maybe you should ask for specifics...? I understand it perfectly. He showed me in a dream and Im not going to try and type it here. I do believe some people do it wrong and God doesn't sanction it. But if God blesses the marriages it was pre ordained. Hope that helps...?
The term "Celestial Plural Marriage" is not found anywhere in any canonized version of LDS scripture. So this argument that Brian uses that Joseph didn't specifically deny celestial plural marriage is completely ridiculous. It was never called that during Joseph's time. So of course he didn't use that language. What a silly silly argument.
I am in the boat of still figuring out what is true and what is not. I can see both sides. I noticed this as well and I agree it is a poor argument. 132 calls it multiple wives and concubines being justified, never celestial plural marriage... I think if it all came from Brigham, he could've easily been deceived by false spirits and his own pride and can still hold the office as president of the church. Many are called but few are chosen. Prophets still have agency and can still be deceived just like the rest of us. But as we can see, the truth of God shall go forth whether Satan likes it or not.
If you want to read my three volumes: Joseph Smith's Polygamy: History and Theology, you'll find all the terms used to refer to the plural sealings. Whatever term you choose, JS was never accused of that behavior specifically. We must rise above our presentism and keep things in historical context, or else we will be mislead.
@@brianhales8971 Where did that term "celestial plural marriage" come from, other than your books. Sincere question. I have never heard anyone else refer to it as that.
Jacob- love your passion, but make sure to allow your slower-speaking than you guests to finish their sentences 😉 I sent this to a friend of mine who is questioning this topic and I worry that your energetic enthusiasm may turn her off. I’m hoping that she can just hear the facts and the Holy Ghost ❤️
If she wants the facts, Brian is not the place to get them. Send her to Karen Hyatt's synopsis "Wo unto ye scribes" And send her to Jacob 2-3. Yes, it is all one sermon and there is NO polygamy "loophole." Then send her to D&C 132 and ask her if she wants to be one of many wives or a concubine in the caste system for women in Heaven. Ask her why 132 claims Christ's atonement is not sufficient for our sins? See if she can count how many false doctrines exist in D&C 132. Hint, it is a LOT more than 10.... It is a FAKE. Joseph is innocent of the allegations of polygamy now as he was in his lifetime.
Currently polygamy is legal in 58 of 200 sovereign states, mostly Muslim. A religion that is needed to be preached to the world would be expected to have some doctrine of the practice? Additionally between 1845 and 1890 when the Church practiced polygamy there were 100's wars going on in the world in just one area, California Indian Wars, between 1,680 and 3,741 were killed by the US Army, Polygamy discussions are likely a distraction to other genocides and wars. I like to also speculate that in the 1840's the future US civil war in 1860's was going to kill about 700,000. Wars in the past 1000 years have killed 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 most, likely men. Polygamy must have given opportunity for some of the few thousand women to have a family that would otherwise not. I am a decedent of a hat maker and his plural second wife. This second wife's first husband died from exposure on his trek to Salt Lake in 1849 with his wife and 7 kids. In 1850 they married. My ancestor and his second wife then had another 7 kids in the Mountain West in company with the Prophet Brigham Young.
@@halsmith7642 it’s a myth that there were more women than men according to census records, many men didn’t have wives bc of polygamy, that’s also how it drove the marriage age down. It took all the women for the leaders of the church and many women didn’t get to have families bc of polygamy. BY had all his children with 16 of his wives, the others were neglected
@@Hmcc0712 My particular ancestor had 7 kids by his second widowed wife who already had 7 kids (6 living) by her first husband, who she was sealed to in marriage at Nauvoo.
That has nothing to do with the question, is polygamy of God. Jacob tells us it is man's tendency to turn to persecution of the poor, seeking riches above God, pride, and seeking to have more wives or concubines. Your facts prove his point. I had two polygamous ancestors and one who declined. What does that have to do with whether polygamy is of God. My grandmother's first husband died and she remarried. What about her?
Thanks for the info it's great. On another note not on the topic of Joseph's polygamy. I just wouldn't say it's not possible to have a conspiracy in general, especially when our government has had many successful "conspiracies" or has been successful in keeping very large programs secret for many years. But the government is very organized so I don't think anyone can do it like then. Otherwise great content
There was a conspiracy. Those who affirm Joseph was innocent of the allegations of polygamy simply claim it was primarily Brigham Young and a few others. The rest were victims of it through the years, including today. On the other hand, Brian is suggesting a vast conspiracy from 1831-1844 of Joseph and his "insiders" forgetting just how many people beyond the 35 alleged wives of Joseph, families, and insiders and their wives, and those who declined to participate.
3:13 I think a lot of people have trouble continuing to sacrifice everything for a church that was founded by a man that was less than honest with his wife. It’s a hard thing to stomach And so most just continue on avoiding the topic and ignoring the whole principal. The way I grew up. It wasn’t about whether Joseph did it or not. It was about whether it was right or wrong. My logic was, Joseph Smith had direct contact with God himself and God commanded Joseph to live polygamy thus polygamy of God. The one thing I never questioned was Gods commands. His ways are higher than our ways and it’s silly to think we can know the mind of God. It’s interesting now that so many things I found problematic or concerning such as blacks being kept from holding any priesthood power and access to eternal covenant’s in the temple. ultimately just had to trust that it was commanded of God because he is in direct contact with His prophets but now it seems that God is no longer the one who commanded it of his prophet but rather just followed societal norms of their time.?.?. 🤨 Would the God of this world really not be able to command whatever he saw fit and right regardless of the societal norms? I mean, I don’t think polygamy was that social norm yet he commanded it.?.? I’m just getting started on this podcast and I’m hoping to get an answer for whether or not you now consider the practice of polygamy to have been another command created by fallible men, or was it of God?
@@Allthoseopposedthis veers away from polygamy but there an amazing podcast by Bruce porter called cain Abel and the priesthood. I wish this was known far and wide. But it completely, in my mind, explains the priesthood issue. It was not society norms as many believe it was. It was the lords timing and things had to be fulfilled before that could happen. It totally made sense and if others knew it they would understand it as well. A very good listen…
@@Allthoseopposed blacks not receiving the priesthood was a policy. David o mckay and others said so. Plural marriage is doctrine.. hard to compare but i ser your point about fallibility
@@raddiemutto7934 Abram and Sarai, lack of faith. Jacob tricked into it by his father in law, then his wives started competing for children and his affection. It breaks womens hearts. We don't follow what Paul did as Saul We should not follow what Abraham did as Abram or Israel did as Jacob
When Christ came, he witnessed against the church. Which prophet did not do what Christ did? Maybe King Benjamin who is the bipolar opposite of our leaders today. Christ, like Joseph, came among friends. What did the Smiths get for their troubles? People like you, Hales, and Hanson, "Thanks for the Book of Mormon--and oh by the way, you are the pathway and excuse for whoredoms and we ignore all your teachings and eisegeses. Thanks Joe." You people make me sick. #whoredomedenier #onewife
Ya, we should live by Brigham Young’s words in *Journal of Discourses*, volume 3, page 266: "This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and whoredom throughout the Christian world. Do away with that, and institute the law of God in its place, and you will redeem a people from the evils and sins of this generation." In this statement, Brigham Young argued that monogamy, as practiced in Christian societies, contributed to social issues like prostitution. He believed that the "law of God," which he understood to include plural marriage, would alleviate these problems by providing an alternative structure for relationships and family life. I guess the only way for my husband to control himself is by getting more wives to “legally” boink. 🧐
Something like this could have been said 50 years ago, "It's amazing how many members reject the churches acknowledgement that blacks shouldn't hold the priesthood."
Always question the motive of people, meaning follow the money. Who benefits from keeping the established narrative going? Brian, do you benefit monetarily from the books and papers you write, if so, I don't count you as a neutral source of information.
I just want to be sure I'm following the careful, balanced reasoning of those who condemn anyone who simply believes Joseph Smith spoke the truth when he ALWAYS attested that he NEVER preached or practiced polygamy (or whatever you call it this week). See if I've got this straight, will you Brothers Brian and Jared . . .? * THE LORD GAVE Joseph Smith a direct and essential commandment for human salvation (marry your babysitters ...) and then ALSO TOLD JOSEPH TO .... * .... PRACTICE this anti-Book of Mormon commandment in order to have TONS of CHILDREN beyond your relationship with Emma, without ever producing ANY other children--except for those with your wife, Emma, * .... MAKE SURE there is NOT A SINGLE contemporary JOURNAL ENTRY about ANY of those earth-shattering unions of the Lord's prophet with any of those dozens of polygamous wives--even though they each kept regular journal entries of all important events in their lives (though DECADES LATER, other leaders will round them up & "jog their memories" & have them EACH SIGN BOILERPLATE AFFIDAVITS, which the unbiased judge at the "Temple Lot Trial" will aggressively dismiss as obviously coerced FRAUDS in their failed attempt to provide the necessary legal evidence that you, Joseph Smith, ever practiced polygamy), * .... ALWAYS DENY and LIE about the new commandment of institutional adultery (whoops, "polygamy"), & loudly condemn polygamy (whoops, "institutional adultery") at every opportunity, * .... And use SECRET CODE (which only Brian Hales or Jacob Hanson will be able to de-cipher for the rest of us--in the 21st century), so that these obvious explicit denials magically become obvious affirmations. (E.g., when you say "I have only one wife" we in the 21st Century (with needed help from Brian and Jacob) will know that you're clearly saying: "I only have one wife AT A TIME--while I am sitting in my cabin with that one wife drinking cider in front of the fireplace." See how easily denials become affirmations? .... * .... (because, you know, the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, SAVE HE SHALL prepare a way for them that they may then immediately DENY THAT COMMANDMENT & repeatedly HIDE THE FACT that they ever received it) .... * .... (and because, you know, "FEAR is the greatest manifestation of Faith" (oops .... more code--sorry, I'll help you with that one later ....) * ..... (and because, you know, the same guy who had the . . . courage to walk out of the Sacred Grove & announce to the entire world they must repent & follow every guideline given to him directly by God himself, word-for-word, to have any hope of salvation from hell; this same pretty tough guy by most standards, then quakes, trembles, & cowers at the prospect of some Missouri or Illinois hick walking past him & accusing him of keeping some commandment given to him directly by the Lord--with a Samurai angel making sure he is on the team) * .... AND THEREFORE ALWAYS SNEAK AROUND in the dark--behind your wife's back--when adding to your teenage (& other men's wives) harem--as commanded by the Lord, * .... AND EXCOMMUNICATE ANY OTHERS you know of who preach or practice that same polygamy * .... AND THEN PREACH monogamy (again, in CODE: don't worry, Brian and Jacob will decipher it for the rubes later) and include additional verses & sections to the DC that clearly certify that the Lord's law of marriage is strictly MONOGAMOUS (whoa, that one may be tough--even for advanced de-coders like Brian and Jacob; but we know they'll figure something out, don't we?) * .... AND THEN ARRANGE FOR FUTURE LEADERS (long after your death) to ERASE those monogamous verses & sections (DC 101, et al), * .... AND HAVE THOSE FUTURE LEADERS REPLACE those clear monogamy verses & sections with the most ham-fisted & carnally-toned words of DC 132, which section suddenly CELEBRATES & COMMANDS having plenty of wives & concubines in order to satisfy any of those ole natural "desires" that may arise . . . which "desires" & accumulation of desire-quenching wives now become the top priority in a (male) saint's life, * .... AND HAVE THEM INCLUDE blatantly FALSE DOCTRINES throughout that newly-forged (I mean placed ... or ... added ... or displayed ... or ...) DC section, * .... And have them state in the first few verses of DC 132 that its purpose is to reveal some BRAND NEW, totally SURPRISING commandment .... which they will ALREADY be practicing before ever reading about it .... * .... AND have them ADDRESS your beloved WIFE and faithful matriarch of the Restoration, EMMA, in the threatening, debasing, HATEFUL TONES of that document, * .... AND HAVE THOSE SAME LEADERS declare the earthly practice of polygamy "ESSENTIAL for exaltation" & "MORE IMPORTANT than BAPTISM" and declare Monogamy the enemy of morality & source of prostitution & disease, * .... AND THEREBY, with all this ammo now available, PROVIDE anti-LDS GROUPS their GREATEST WEAPON (targeting potential investigators & vulnerable members) against reading the Book of Mormon, gaining a testimony of its truth, & joining the Lord's true and restored kingdom they could ever hope for in their deepest anti-LDS dreams . . . Am I following you, Brian and Jacob, and other folks, or did I miss a few direct commandments of the Lord to his founding prophet of the Restoration ... ? And you're mad at "Joseph Smith Affirmers") for doubting such "light-and-truth-filled" doctrines & related activities? Hmmm, I think, instead of all that, I'll just go ahead & believe and sustain the Lord's founding prophet of the Restoration, the Prophet Joseph Smith, when he ALWAYS exclaimed that he condemned polygamy & was a loving and faithful husband to his dear wife, Emma, who also clearly denied that her husband ever polygamized. Sure hope my decision doesn't get y'all too riled . . . Give it a try, yourself, my friend, & see how the Lord feels about that decision. Okay? .
@@establishingzion688 You kidding me? That was a blast. But thanks for asking. These things almost write themselves: Showing the Brighamites' transparent and perverse efforts to justify and then beatify people who deliberately betrayed the Lord and His founding prophet--to deviously install what the Lord always calls "an abomination" and "whoredom," which He tells us, always "leads away captive" and "breaks the tender hearts" of His daughters, as He, their Heavenly Father "see[s] their sorrow and hears their mourning" because of the "filthiness" of the fathers and the "fornication and lasciviousness" of the husbands. Wow. * Do you think Jacob and the Lord are overdoing it when they so forcefully call upon husbands anywhere "in all the lands of my people" to repent of the "wickedness and abomination" that always accompanies polygamy? * Do you think Heavenly Father (or Jacob) is being too emotional in this diatribe against polygamy, as He watches the whoredoms of the husbands break the tender hearts of His eternal daughters? * Would you tell Jacob and the Lord to "relax and take a deep breath" ? BTW: Did you enjoy the video? Your kind of thing? I'm guessing: "Yessiree!"
This has been a great episode! I have listened to Michelle Stone and felt no spirit and although she seems to be “well researched”, she never has shown this kind of contemporaneous and original source documentation which I believe is a major problem. I have always believed that JS introduced polygamy and that he was sealed to many women. I have not however felt that he “lived polygamy” as we would believe it however now I am open to that. In regards to Brigham Young and other church leaders who practiced polygamy I have always believed that they were chosen, key holding prophets, seers and revelators and that polygamy was commanded of God. I love what President Nelson said in regards to polygamy. Yes we did, no we don’t and both periods were directed by Devine revelation from God! To me that is the mic drop!
Wait, did you feel the spirit in this episode? I actually have felt the spirit many times in Michelle’s episodes, and the stuff about Joseph being a polygamist gives me an immediate stupor of thought. It is like throwing my conscience in a blender. God is not the author of confusion. God doesn’t give carefully worded denials. When I finally asked God if polygamy was really from him, the spirit immediately came with the words, “No. this is not who I am. That is not my character.” I had been praying about this for years with utter emptiness and darkness, but my question was wrong. I kept asking why He did it. It never occurred to me that I should be asking “if.” My witness came before I had ever heard the case that Joseph was not a polygamist.
@ yes I did! My problem is that the Lord has laid out his pattern for revealing truth and that pattern is through His servants the Prophets. It is not the Lord’s pattern to tell people to “reveal His real truth” by making a RUclips channel dedicated to telling the world that His chosen prophets aka Young, Woodruff, Snow and Taylor were fallen prophets and committed egregious sins yet still retained keys that are on the earth today. That is not the pattern. Now if our prophet today came out and said that MS is right and polygamy was all wrong then I follow the Lords pattern for revealed truth! However President Nelson said “yes we did, no we don’t now” in regards to polygamy and I am good with that. I am glad that you received your spiritual confirmation. That is how personal revelation is given! However that was revelation for you not for the Lord’s church.
@@teresawoodside4051 There are true prophets and false prophets. The scriptures tell us this many times. We must be able to discern truth. The infallibility of the prophet is a cultish, false notion. Only Jesus Christ is infallible.
My number one proof is the witness of the Holy Ghost that plural marriage was the will of God, it was given to Joseph, and that he did indeed practice it.
The Lord of Hosts (God of Isreal) and God Almighty say that "many wives and concubines" is a WHOREDOM. There is NO loophole in Jacobs Sermon Chapters 2-3. Section 132 of D&C if FILLED with false doctrines. Basically it removes Jesus Christ as our Chief CornerStone. So maybe that is not who you are hearing from...
Why would the Holy Ghost bear witness of something the Lord calls a WHOREDOM? Jacob 2-3. No polygamy loophole. 132 is a FAKE Salamander Letter. We have no original, no copy signed by Joseph Smith, does not appear until 8 years AFTER the martyrdom. It contains doctrines that deny the power of Christ unto salvation, and takes away women's agency. It is not an "offering" if your husband can bring in another wife or wives without your permission. The God as described in the fake "principle and doctrine" of "many wives and concubines" is NOT the loving God, who hears the cries of women and the suffering--as Jacob 2-3 describes.
When someone says they only have one wife, son, one daughter, one house, one car, one dog, one RV, one trampoline, etc., we now know they are lying. They secretly have more! 🧐 That’s Brian’s logic on why JS’ final address states that he only has one wife. And they think deniers are out of their minds. Ugh.
Yes!! Talk about cherry picking and twisting words. I’m sure historians are scrambling to cover their tracks now that the common man now has access to the Joseph smith papers, journals, and other documents now online. Historians can no longer control the narrative and are digging deep to back up their ridiculous claims.
You can't hear the truth. The law of chastity must be lived during mortality perfectly, that is, we must learn to not even lust after a person who is not your spouse, to earn a Celestial body, which is an immortal body that has sexual organs, like Adam and Eve had. For there not to be polygamy in heaven, the exact same number of men and women would have to live the law of chastity. Jacob said no polygamy, because God hears the cries of His fair daughters. God also hears the cries of His righteous daughters that have no prospect of eternal marriage, like Leeh, so He closed Rachel's womb, so Jacob would favor Leah , even thou
@@GarySaint-xm6tr can you share with me where it says in scripture there will be more women than men in heaven? What if it ends up being more men than women? Are men okay with sharing their wife? The imbalance is a man made concept and undermines the concept that God is in charge and is perfect.
@@monicafoster5839 Am I okay with there being more men than women that live the law of chastity in mortality, and thereby earn a Celestial body. First. That is a personal question. It has nothing to do with logic. There are plenty of surveys that show more women than men keep the law of chastity. Life experience shows more women than men keep the law of chastity. Look at the restaurants, twin peaks, hooters, etc. there are not very many restaurants like that for women, because the market isn't there. That's just the beginning.. President Eyeing recently said there will be more women than men at the conference at Adam Ondi Aman. President Hinkley said that violations of the law of chastity are more of a male problem, but the women are catching up. As far as the emotional question. First. I want to repent sufficientty to earn a Celestial body. Second. If I do, I do not have low self esteem, so no, I would not have a problem with being a multiple husband. .
@@GarySaint-xm6tr interesting that you use the law of chastity as the only thing that determines earning a celestial body. Your arguments continue to amaze me. And not in a good way. 😂
I'm not a polygamy denier, but i do enjoy asking some tough questions. What if Abinadi's mission was successful? What if King Noah along with all his high priests had decided to repent? What would that church look like after a hundred and 150 years?
Read Words of Mormon in The Book of Mormon. Start with verse 14. Super interesting parallel to your thought. Leads in to Mosiah. Turns out great for The Church.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c thanks for the reply. I think I agree with this, and this goes to show that succession of authority is not broken by men who sinned gravely, and or taught whoredoms to the people.
@@SacredGnosis Even when trees in the Allegory of the Olive Tree are not bearing much or any good fruit, they serve an important function to keep the roots alive. This is one reason it is good to stay faithful in times of uncertainty as we watch and try to understand how the Lord works.
@@SacredGnosis Read Jacob 4-6 actually. I had not seen the newer Church video on the allegory. But the lesson manual writers make it so Church centric vs God centric. Who can be the Lord of the Vineyard but God the Father? He is the one whose plan it is. He is the one whereby Christ says he does not know where the Father hath lead Israel (the tame branches,) It is God the Father whose glory it is. Jacob tells us in 4 that Christ is presenting the fruits unto His Father. Satans plan was to take the glory and the Fruit! We should not take the Father out so make room for the Church in place of Christ! Nevertheless, the Allegory tells us God will straighten it out through the gathering.
I came from polygamous heritage and for the most of my life believed the LDS church narrative, until I did more thorough search and pondering of the subject. Brian seems to be into labels, but rather than the label imposed by him and others as "polygamy deniers"; I'd rather, if a label must be used, be known as a "truth seeker." Another fallacy that Brian espouses is labeling those who study the issues on their own as "amateur historians", as if we can't think for ourselves and must rely on "professionals" to spoon feed us their findings. He is by profession an anesthesiologist and had much of his research done by someone who left the church. What special qualifications does he have to make claim as an historian? That being said, polygamy and Joseph Smith's involvement is a controversial and contentious topic for a lot of people, and due to apostates and polygamy-believing members, like Brian, who both claim Joseph was a liar in public and unfaithful to Emma in private, it has been the source of many members and investigators losing faith in the church. It seems pointless to join the diatribe between individuals who contradict each other's historical research, so I'll use the scriptures and specifically the source material of D&C 132 to point out issues with polygamy. Section 132 is the ONLY place in the scriptures that states plural marriage comes from the Lord; there are no other scriptures in the standard works that explicitly state that the Lord commanded righteous men to take another wife; although there have been times when polygamy was allowed. Joseph was a student of the Bible and I believe he understood it better than almost anyone. He even did a massive translation of it, known as the JST, and he had the spirit of revelation, so it’s more likely that other men not as acquainted with the scriptures would have made the errors that are apparent in the very first verse and other verses in D&C 132: 1) There is no scriptural support for Isaac marrying more than to one wife. 2) Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman while living in Egypt (Numbers 12:1) and after he fled Egypt he married Zipporah and no one else is mentioned in the scriptures. In another book, I read that the Ethiopian marriage was part of a political alliance between the two countries. What happened to the marriage after he fled is unknown. The Lord did not condemn Moses, and in fact when Aaron and Miriam ridiculed Moses for the marriage, the Lord declared Moses as “faithful in all mine house,” and “the anger of the Lord was kindled against them.” It is false when in 132:38 it mentions that Moses, along with David and Solomon “received many wives and concubines. 3) David was NOT justified in all his marriages. Some were permitted, and many of his marriages were done as part of political alliances. In D&C 132:39 it only mentions Uriah’s wife Bathsheba as the only wife where David committed sin. However, in JST 1 Kings 11:6 it states in reference to the many wives David and Solomon had and how it led to their downfall: “And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father, and went not fully after the Lord.” 4) Solomon was also NOT justified in all 700 wives and 300 concubines who some eventually “turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, and it became as the heart of David his father.” It also says that because Solomon did not keep God’s covenants and statutes, that God would rend the kingdom during the reign of Solomon’s son. (JST 1Kings 11: 3-4, 9-12) 5) Again in verse 38 it also says that “many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time” received “many wives and concubines,” “…and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.” This is another blatantly false statement that cannot be backed up with scriptures. I did a search to find all the polygamous marriages in the Old Testament, and besides Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, it only mentions five other men who had more than one living wife: (1) Esau - Genesis 26:34; 2); Gideon - Judges 8:30; (3) Elkanah the father of Samuel - 1 Samuel 1:2; (4) Rehoboam, Solomon’s son - 2 Chronicles 11:21; (5) King Abijah - 2 Chronicles 13:21. There were none in the New Testament, and the mention in any of the other standard works of multiple marriages are of men who were unrighteous and these polygamous practices were often associated with societal and spiritual decline. (King Noah and his wicked priests - Mosiah 11; Riplakish - Ether 10:5; Lamech, a descendant of Cain, Adah - Moses 5:44). As I have studied section 132, it is apparent that all of it was NOT consistent with other revelations given to Joseph; however, I’m not discounting that some of it may have been a revelation from him. Having the document conveniently locked in Brigham's desk draw and not sharing it with members until 1852 would have given ample time to make changes or additions. Much of it does not match the other revelations of Joseph Smith, indicating that parts were added to it by others. For example, there are 12 verses that "damn, destroy, or curse" people and 8 of them invoke the name of God (vs. 4, 6, 14, 26, 27, 41, 46, 52, 54, 57, 63 & 64). In a writing analysis that was conducted, this is more consistent with Brigham's writing and speaking style. Lastly, if the principle of celestial marriage (known as plural marriage in the eternities prior to the manifesto) is essential to exaltation, why is there no mention of it in any other scriptures besides D&C 132? Why did the Savior not speak of it in the Book of Mormon while he was teaching the people in the Americas? And, even though Brigham made it a part of the temple endowment during his tenure, why is there nothing mentioned about plural marriage being essential to exaltation in the modern-day temple endowment?
So Brigham is a scammer, and a fallen prophet. As was john Taylor, woodruff, snow.. joseph f.. why are you staying in such a horrible church? I guess president nelson is bad too for being sealed to wendy? Just admit what you really mean.. the church is fallen
In D&C 132, while we refer to it as the doctrine of polygamy, it is actually referred to as the doctrine of many wives and concubines. So we the members of the LDS Church, attribute to Jesus Christ a doctrine of concubines. That should immediately be your first red flag. But I agree, it appears that whoever wrote section 132 did not have a great understanding of the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon. Did the Lord put the church under condemnation for not using the Book of Mormon? Imagine if the early saints had a better understanding of the Book of Mormon. Would polygamy have ever been introduced? In addition, you will have a difficult time finding any biblical scholars who will state that God commanded polygamy. There is a consensus that God did not command polygamy. It was a cultural practice, but our Book of Mormon makes it clear that polygamy was the exact reason that God commanded Lehi to leave Jerusalem and raise up a righteous generation (seed) away from the polygamist, otherwise they would hearken unto those things or in other words become polygamist themselves. So this happened and we have to deal with it now. So a lot of times people want to say "oh well Brigham Young must have been a false prophet and so were all the others." If that's your conclusion that's fine but it's clear that maybe you haven't read the scriptures well enough. It is clear that our church has introduced many tares in addition to polygamy that have since been weeded out. The Lord said this would happen in doctrine and covenants section 86. For the most part polygamy has been weeded out but still has a little ways to go. So how does this actually happen though? Well Jacob comes in and saves the day again. Jacob 4: 14-18 makes it clear that sometimes God gives in to the desires of men's hearts. And Jacob makes it clear when he says God does this so that they may stumble. So that they may realize that it's only upon the foundation of Jesus Christ can they build. So how do we get back then to make Jesus Christ the foundation? Well Jacob answers that in chapter 5. A lot of people have an issue with some of the things that President Nelson is doing. I personally believe they are things that are needed. President Nelson calls it a continuing restoration. Perhaps that's a good way to put it or another way to put it is a continuing correction. While the early saints did some great and marvelous things they also introduced some bad fruit doctrines and attributed those doctrines to Jesus Christ. I think president Nelson is trying to get us back on the sure foundation of Jesus Christ. While we have always sort of been there, there is still a lot of bad fruit that needs to be cut off.
@brianhales8971 I had a question about Joseph Smith’s remarks that you discuss at 0:25:00. Do you know what elicited this response from him? When I looked up the source (history of the church vol 6) it states that it is his “testimony against the dissenters at Nauvoo.” But that’s all the info it gives as far as context. In a comment you state that “No one was accusing Joseph Smith of practicing celestial plural marriage.” So I’m trying to find out more about what dissenters were specifically accusing him of. Were they simply trying to accuse him of practicing plural marriage in general? Regardless of whether it was celestial?
1:18:00 wow quite the leap in logic there-the RLDS church wanting to make the debate about doctrine is now suddenly equivalent to them acknowledging that JS was a polygamist?
Question 1 - Joseph denied having more than one wife. He stated he only had one (1844)!!!! If he had more than one he lied, period. Question 2- This shouldn't even be a question as this group of people either lied before Joseph's death when they signed their names to documents polygamy wasn't practiced or they lied after Joseph's death when they claimed he authored it. Either way they conspired and lied. But to answer your question - It started with rumors as polygamy was the big scare of the day and we have documentation of when the 12 went to Saco Maine and preached to the Cochranites and the people feared they associated with them. Brigham not Joseph went to Maine and interacted with them. We have documentation of people questioning if mormons were involved in polygamy and we have Joseph's denial. Not only do we have his denial but we have him asserting and inserting into D&C the only acceptable form of marriage in the church which was monogamy. Then we have John C. Bennett who was angry with Joseph for outing him for the lying adultering, spiritual wifery scoundrel he was and who after being exposed did everything he could to project his own actions onto Joseph in an attempt to discredit him and ruin his reputation. Then you have other enemies of the Joseph who again wanted to discredit him and ruin him people like Bennetts cohort Chauncey Higbee who joined with the Laws and Fosters and who we have record conspired to kill Joseph. Then you have Brigham and Heber, Richards and Clayton who all were across the ocean together serving missions and it was on that mission that Brigham stated he received a vision/revelation whatever regarding polygamy, before Joseph allegedly introduced him to it. It was on that mission that we have records of inappropriate behavior between some of these men and women. These missionaries encouraged women to leave their husbands and even children to go be with the saints in America which put them in a dire situation and susceptible to seduction. Not only did Joseph put a stop to that but he also instituted the RS in part to care for these women to protect them from the wolves (men) that would prey on them. We have records that are not disputed by anyone of Brigham and Heber taking multiple wives while Joseph was preaching against it and excommunicating those found practicing it. Then you have a group of Mormons who trek across the west and are in the middle of no where, completely reliant upon their leaders for survival. Five years later they are presented with a polygamy revelation and told it came from Joseph. Yet oddly no woman at that time speaks up to claim that she had been special enough to be chosen to be the prophets plural wife. 17 years later after many had entered into polygamy and have families Joseph's sons arrive in Utah and tell everyone that their father had nothing to do with polygamy. Their cousin goes looking for evidence to the contrary and (not surprisingly) can't find any "Joseph F. Smith wrote to Orson Pratt on July 19, 1875, and stated that, as he began to put together evidence of Joseph’s involvement in polygamy and its historical unfolding, he “was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the subject” (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy 1:9; italics added). Suddenly Brigham and Heber's wives come forward and claim that they had been married to Joseph. So you have the people who hated Joseph and wanted to destroy him. You have the people who believed what they were told, and you have people whose families and way of life were dependent on people believing the lie. They believed in the mantra lying for the Lord. Their stories are full of holes and lack credibility. Saying a polygamist community wouldn't ban together and lie is just ridiculous in light of groups like Warren Jeffs and Kingstons. And Joseph's enemies aren't going to change their tune as they would lose credibility. Others involved we have records of them being on the payroll so to speak. You have a group of people all with strong motives to lie. Question 3- Absolutely, they taught lying for the Lord for a reason and we know for a fact they lied. We have Brighams ludicrous lies about Emma poisoning Joseph, we have documentation of Woodruff's lies about members no longer practicing polygamy, among other proven lies. Amazing that Brian thinks the church can stand with Joseph being a liar but not with Brigham, Taylor, Woodruff and Snow being liars.
I believe Joseph, the prophet of the restoration; Emma; and Hyrum! One wife!! Read the original D&C 101. JS published it six times in nine years: 1835 doctrine and covenants, Messenger and advocate August 1835, September 1, 1842 times in seasons, October 1, 1842 times and seasons, 1844 January millennial star. 1844 doctrine and covenants. Officially published at four of those times himself, and it was published by two other editors of the newspapers. Joseph and Hyrum denied the charges by Austin Cowell’s William and Jane law saying that they had received and read a revelation on polygamy. They denied it June 8 and 10th of 1844 before the Nauvoo city council. That denial was published in the papers. They were killed later that month.
i have good reason to beleive the 1 wife thing unless a death occur is wrong. that was a social thing ,a tradition from the roman catho and protestants. ..just like the black ban on priesthood. if it be from the lord he would not have commanded me to remarry to a specific sister after being divorced of a sealed wife. arguments presented on both side are confusing . only personal revelation will settle the argument. and then what? we arent expected to be poly again. !
@BridgeBuilder-x4c What facts that he mentioned don't stand up to scrutiny? You don't seem to be thinking about the situation with a critical mind. There are facts that are evidence for polygamy like Brian mentioned, and there are some that are evidence for the opposite, such as the many denials by JS.
@@jonny6man None of Brian's allegations stand up to scrutiny. He is a storyteller. And sad to say, reminds of a kid who can taunt other kids, knowing that big brother will back him up. I had no idea just how unfounded allegations of Joseph's polygamy are, until I started watching Brian defend himself--and started listening to those defending Joseph. Then as a cross check, I turned to scripture. And it is shocking to see just what a manipulation the lesson manuals create--to convince people of a polygamy loophole in Jacob 2-3. Worse yet is how the Church pretends D&C 132 makes any sense doctrinally. If the Church has to hide, that at one time the D&C contained a document condemning polygamy as a crime, and they had to hide that Brigham brought it out of his desk 8 years after the martyrdom, it tells me that truth is not a priority regarding this matter.
Hey Jacob, idk if you’ve seen but Capturing Christianity has been going on a rampage the past couple weeks about polygamy and parallels between JS and Mohammed. Seems like he thinks he’s “discovered” a bunch of salacious facts we’ve been aware of for decades. None of it is really novel, but he has a big platform, and I think it would be helpful for people to hear your response. Thanks!
Still, where are the descendants? In the real world, women would have claimed their children were fathered by Joseph even they weren’t. But instead we are expected to believe that Joseph had sex with multiple women, but only impregnated Emma. It flies in the face of logic.
Don't worry Brother John. People like JaredShipps (and his heroes, Brian and Jacob) will twist that plain PROOF that JS never practiced polygamy into some personal pretzel they can swallow like: "Oh, a miracle occurred to prevent all those births by JS's DOZENs of additions to his harem--in order to keep polygamy a secret until after JS's death, when BY and others could feel free to spike up the incidents of polygamous marriages (with teenaged girls, especially, at that point, for some odd reason) and polygamous births. The Lord works in mysterious ways" (which only JaredShipps, Brian, Jacob, and others with their secret De-Coder rings can decipher for us uninitiated rubes who believe JS when he made it crystal clear he NEVER preached or practiced Polygamy or taking Plural Wives or Whatever and was ALWAYS faithful to his ONE and ONLY one wife, Emma.)
Don't worry--Ace decoders Brian and Jacob have some response brewing: "Obviously a miracle occurred that prevented these children from appearing until after JS's death, when an amazing SPIKE took place in births to newly-increased polygamous harems . . ."
It's not as unlikely as you might think. Given that only a handful of women claimed to have sex with him within this 2 year period, and that it wasn't a repeated occurance. Women are only fertile at most 7 days a month. Take Emma for example. She didn't conceive until 9 months after they were married. Even then, 5 out of their 9 children died before 2. As secretive as this practice would have been, it's not surprising if he didn't want to have children with these plural wives, or that they would be raised unknowing their true father.
@ a sensible and well reasoned perspective, but it requires that we accept that Joseph’s practice of polygamy was not wide spread and that his sexual encounters with these women was once or even infrequent. For that to be true, we would have to believe that Joseph was indifferent toward sex. If he was, why ask God about multiple wives in the first place?
Believing Joseph didn’t introduce and practice polygamy puts an individual in a similar camp as, someone who would “… say that the sun does not shine while he sees it”.
@@alexblake5743 Apparently you’ve not investigated the evidence. Here’s a question I’ve not seen asked: Why did William Law who was Joseph’s 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency plot with others to kill Joseph?
I’m guessing you haven’t looked very far into the issues. It’s always easy to stereotype the opposition when you haven’t really considered the information that would change their minds so fully. Also, it has not been fun, nor easy to make this realization. I love God, and I love the restoration. The Lord is helping me through a transition I never expected.
- “14 I have seen also in the prophets an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies...20 in the LATTER DAYS ye shall consider it perfectly. 21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. 22 But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.” Jeremiah 23
Look at the 2025 Come Follow Me Lesson on D&C 132. The Church is even using Fanny Alger and Mercy Thompson as some of the most ridiculous examples of alleged but not proven polygamous wives of Joseph and Hyrum. You won't hear public conference talks defending polygamy. Instead it's a quiet--go to the Church website. Or, let's just talk about it in the classrooms and homes. It is not in the past, unfortunately, because the Church keeps Section 132 and its "principle and doctrine" of "many wives and concubines" in the Doctrine and Covenants. Jacob 2-3 makes it crystal clear that according to the Lord and God Almighty, "many wives and concubines" is WHOREDOM. This means, the Church is teaching whoredom in Seminary, Sunday School and pushing it into our homes. I object. This is bearing false witness against Joseph to cover the sins of Brigham and others. This is taking the Lord's name in vain, claiming he is the author of, rather than the one who "suffered" the sins of "many wives and concubines" committed by them of old and in all the lands of his people. God does not have a caste system for women of many wives and concubines on Earth or in Heaven. I have loved ones who have left the Church because they do not want their children to be taught WHOREDOM. It is very sad, because in doing so they are missing out on all the beauty and truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Let's hear what God Himself says about polygamy. I TIMOTHY 3:2 "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach..." I TIMOTHY 3:2 "Let Decons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well..." TITUS 1:6 "If a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination..." Notice in all three verses God says: "The husband of one wife!"
You have to look at all scripture together. You're clearly a non-member (which begs the question why you're even here) that has no knowledge of modern revelation. Furthermore, you'll have to explain why prophets in the Old Testament had multiple wives.
Isn't that the point? Why would they add that? Why say specifically a bishop or a deacon? That implies they were practicing polygamy, but that those in certain positions should only have one.
@@AlbertJLouie No, no actually it isn't. There isn't a specific verse that ever, ever condemns polygamy. 50+ for homosexuality, why? It only says for certain positions they didn't want to do polygamy, and even then if you interpreted it the way you do, it doesn't condemn it. "Read the bible again" isn't an answer, it's a cop out, because there is no proof. And I don't say this with any negative feelings, but I just really believe it to be true.
This is by far the best conversation on this topic. Brian and Jacob continues to amaze me. Brian has signaled and is the watchman on the watchtower cautioning wayward souls that are reaching beyond truth but have become accusers of the restitution of all things in this last dispensation. People will but his kingdom will in these last days forward will stand forever. For those that are not only deniers but followers of false doctrine , I repeat what Brian has said before it’s too late. Brian is nice and has challenged local leaders to stop this infiltration. Blessings
Sorry but Brian has outdated evidence and has sorely represented his strongest evidence. A pile of nothing burgers, is still a nothing burger. Ask Brian to speak to Karen Hyatts "Wo Unto Ye Scribes" where she outs Brians deceptions. I have held off calling them deceptions, but it has become way to blatant. Perhaps Brian feels he is "Lying for the Lord." Because oddly, I have had 2 seminary teachers actually say that was what Joseph was doing. When in fact, Joseph was the honest one whose character has been tarred and feathered by Brian and the cabal of Church historians. Somehow Brian has elevated himself as judge of those who disagree with him as apostates and polygamy "deniers" when he cannot answer to their findings.
Brigham lied about Oliver practicing polygamy, Emma attempting to kill Joseph, Emma conspiring with the mob, Joseph appointing Hyrum as successor, Joseph teaching the priesthood ban etc etc etc. How can you not fathom the idea that Brigham also lied about polygamy?
The priesthood ban did begin with Joseph. Just like plural marriage and the temple endowment, the initial teachings began with Joseph and were expanded by Brigham. Joseph was the architect, Brigham the builder. Both were prophets.
Amen brother! Let's just keep the secrets. Our fundamentalist cousins have lead the way. We know the joy that polygamy has brought them and if we keep the faith, we'll be back in business. Joseph was pretty good at keeping secrets. We don't need any riff raff in the Celestial Kingdom. Light of Christ is a disinfectant we don't need. Let's just keep shaming the deniers until they go away.
32:34 you do realize Joseph revealed the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, but they were taken by enemies and edited in a way to discredit Joseph? Now grant the possibility that the secret-polygamist apostles (those in secret chambers who desired Joseph’s life) took the revelation on eternal marriage and edited it into what is now D&C 132. You guys have no problem accepting that the 116 pages were real, so can you grant that the revelation on eternal marriage was real without “polygamy deniers” having to supply it?
I am definitely a denier. On May 25, 1844 Joseph gave a speech in which he denied being a polygamist. That was three weeks before his death. Emma claimed he wasn't a participant. So either he was truthful, or he lied. I don't believe he was a liar. I believe he was sealed to several women and men in an effort to form a chain of authority in a celestial kingdom government. You can see an illustration of that concept of celestial government as drawn by Orson Hyde in 1847 in the Millennial Star. Based on this concept, families were not the central focus of sealings back then. That's why Joseph was never sealed to his parents. This particular rabbit hole deserves a lot better review than I'm going to give here, but it's important to learn the motive for all the sealings. There is absolutely no evidence that Joseph had any offspring with anyone other than Emma. Being sealed to Joseph Smith did not equate to being married to him. That concept of celestial government, also known as the Law of Adoption, was corrected by revelation through Wilford Woodruff in 1893. I personally suspect that John C Bennet brought the concept of Spiritual Wives (a term never used by Joseph Smith) into the church and as a counselor in the First Presidency was able to secretly convince others that it came by way of revelation. The secretive nature of polygamy in the early church is in total opposition to the "Law of Common Consent" as revealed by the Lord. Mr Bennet was subsequently excommunicated from the church on charges of adultery and homosexuality. Section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants is suspect in my mind for several reasons: 1. It didn't appear until well after Joseph's death. Earlier transcripts during Joseph's lifetime were not authored by him. 2. It contradicts entirely the earlier D & C section on marriage. 3. The language and tone of the text is completely inconsistent with all other revelations. So the bottom line is that I believe that Joseph was not a liar, and that Brigham was deceived by Mr. Bennet.
Joseph Smith did practice polygamy which included physical relations. For a time he denied it publicly. He had his reasons for denying it publicly - but to answer your question - Yes he practiced polygamy, yes he lied about it for a time, and yes he still was a prophet.
The no offspring fact is the smoking gun for me, especially after being married to supposedly so many women. Joseph Smith had a very different idea what "sealing" meant, and it's dishonest to attribute Brigham Young's version of sealing and the endowment that BY wrote himself, to Joseph Smith's version. For such an important practice as polygamy to raise up a nation, Joseph Smith sure failed miserably. All other polygamists had no trouble having a ridiculous amount of offspring.
@@colt40fly Your point is well taken. Obviously Joseph decided not to have children with these women. How exactly he was practicing birth control, I don't know. He and others married women of all ages - and if you think Joseph married young women and decided to not have relations with them, then you pushing the limits of credulity in my opinion. Not to mention all of the other evidences that Joseph did have relations with them. I know you have your rebuttals to the historical evidences of physical relations in these marriage, but there is just too much evidence in my opinion for the rebuttals to hold up.
@@raddiemutto7934 Yeah, Apparently Joseph Smith was the only polygamist that figured out birth control. The chances of having relations with that many women in such a short timeline with zero offspring is close to zero. There's zero contemporary evidence he had relations with anyone other than Emma, so I guess it just comes down to who you believe. I choose to believe someone that claimed direct communication with God and who translated the Book of Mormon over other prophets that never spoke with God. I've seen the arguments objectively on both sides and it's more plausible to me Joseph Smith was not a liar and condemned polygamy. There's a reason the church will not release the William Clayton journals. I hope they do. More people have left the church believing Joseph Smith was a pedophile than for any other reason so this debate is well worth having.
What I don’t understand about this is that if Joseph introduced and practiced polygamy - it means he is a LIAR. How can you trust him if he lied about this fundamental thing?! The polygamy denier camp is a much more understandable position for faithful Mormons to take as they are trying to say that their prophet was a trustworthy person who followed the standard that their scriptures put forth. The BOM is more anti-polygamy than the Bible!!
After watching many of these debates on the topic, diving down the rabbit hole, and reading far too many comments on videos like this I have noticed something interesting: it seems from my sampling that the Polygamy believers (opposed to the polygamy deniers) use logical fallacies and personal attacks towards those who have come to a different conclusion. I see name calling, finger pointing, and cruel comments about their faith. Studying is wonderful. But let’s not become all manner of “ites”. Remember, “in coming days it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, constant and comforting companion of the Holy Ghost!” We need the spirit to help us discern truth from err. Name calling, finger pointing, and condemning always makes your argument weak.
You see it on both sides. The Lord's mouthpieces have multiple wives sealed to them. If you believe in their authority then that should persuade you in the right direction. But the Holy Ghost is the best source of truth on this. And there is a true and correct position, to be certain.
You just did exactly what you tell people not to do. It is definitely in both sides. I was told that if I didn't believe Brigham Young faked a revelation and the church had been in error every since, when Jesus comes, he will tell me he never knew me. It is definitely on both sides. My perception is that Satan will do anything to separate us and to call into question the Prophets. That is exactly what the polygamy debate is doing.
@@topazblahblah Here's the problem though, those men aren't the Lord's mouthpieces at all. Oaks and Nelson are total Gadiantons and false prophets. This is easily provable.
Brighamite just means latter day saint. Its weird that we use old, divisive slang still. I guess it can be called "quaint" but in today's vernacular the polygamy denialists use it with derisive vitriol. Its time to retire it unless we are referring to a specific souce, like a quote that uses it, from back in the day.
But it does nicely get to the distinction in this issue . . . do you believe Joseph or Brigham? Would you suggest a substitute term? But maybe "polygamy denialists" needs to also retire . . .?
He and Michelle Stone and Whitney Horning and the Prices and Rob Fotheringham and Hemlock Knots have already debunked everything Brian has. Brian just figures he has The Church backing him up. They have God backing them up. The Book of Mormon tells us to repent, could polygamy be one of the things we are supposed to repent of--along with Brigham Young's other doctrinal inventions?
Answer to Question #1. Joseph never taught celestial plural marriage. It wasn't a thing until later. He did condemn having more than one wife multiple times.
Such a pathetic explanation of the October 1843 journal entry. You don’t get to just cross out and add words and write it into history as if this is what Joseph actually said. We don’t get to put words in Joseph’s mouth that he didn’t say, that’s dishonest. “On this law”, meaning the law of the church known as CI, which Joseph published six different times.
I disagree. Willard Richards scribed the entry and knew about plural marriage. He had already been sealed to two plural wives on January 18, 1843, Sarah and Nancy Longstroth. Richards knew that the "law" mentioned could authorize polygamy, otherwise it could not be practiced, and JS held the keys to exercise that law.
@@brianhales8971 Can you acknowledge though that to write this modified journal every into church history claiming that these are the words spoken by Joseph, is dishonest? If they had left the entry unchanged and then tried to explain what Joseph meant, then sure, but it’s still wrong to claim that Joseph said these things. You’d have a better argument claiming that the original entry was what Joseph said, but that he was again just making a public denial. I’m sorry but your explanation is far too much of a stretch. How do we know that the “law” is not the law given in CI? Remember that the law of marriage was still in the D&C at this time and was being published publicly by Joseph himself. If someone crosses out large portions of my journal 10 years after I die and then writes in new words to flip what I said 180 degrees, and leaves a note in the margin that says to be revised, I sure hope people won’t accept those as my words.
@@Commenter2121 I really am impressed, Brother Commenter2121, at your incisive responses to this dude that keeps telling us about his 3 published books on the subject. You refuse to be intimidated or back-off and get right to the essential points of every rebuttal hurled at you. I'm not kidding when I say: it is a lot of fun seeing your clear and eloquent mind at work . . . about a subject that is SIGNIFICANT to the members of the Lord's kingdom right now. This is NOT some "fringe debate" going on right now. SO MUCH IS AT STAKE. So, a simple: "Thank You" is in order.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c And Brother BridgeBuilder, may I simply echo to you now all the accolades I just gave to Commenter2121: I really am impressed, BridgeBuilder, at your incisive responses to this dude that keeps telling us about his 3 published books on the subject. You refuse to be intimidated or back-off and get right to the essential points of every rebuttal hurled at you. I'm not kidding when I say: it is a lot of fun seeing your clear and eloquent mind at work . . . about a subject that is SIGNIFICANT to the members of the Lord's kingdom right now. This is NOT some "fringe debate" going on right now. SO MUCH IS AT STAKE. So, a simple: "Thank You" is in order. BTW: Something else just dawned on me about you two: I believe the Lord has brought you two into these debates at this time--and that the Lord's grace is attending and shaping your understandings and responses. (And I am also impressed at your civility, calm, politeness, and charity that accompany your responses, while always maintaining a sense of urgency, purpose, non-compromise, and focus. That's a nice trick, amigos--harmonizing charity with courage and a sense of urgency. Spot-on.
A bigger question for my apostate son isn’t polygamy per se but the age of the man vs age of girl being married. 50 vs 14 respectfully. Particularly the prophets after Brigham young. Anyone have thoughts on this.
First, that difference in age wasn't all that uncommon at the time. It's important we don't look at the ages through the lens of presentism. Second, there is no evidence the marriage was consummated. Enemies of the Church simply like to highlight the age issue in order to make it appear scandalous without having any real understanding of sealings or honest concern for Helen or anyone else involved.
For Utah polygamy Brigham Young strongly and publicly encouraged waiting until 18 yrs old to consummate marriage. So even if a 14 year old was sealed to a man sexual relations would wait until they were 18 years old. 100 years ago teen marriage and sex even to older men were not all that uncommon.
*@@jaredshipp9207 I don't know why I even respond to JaredShipp, knowing how deeply he snoozes through his life-long polygamy fantasias, but as they say about Septic Tank cleaners--"somebody's got to do it." * So, Brother Jared, the comment was about a post-Joseph Smith polygamous marriage, and you commented instead on a marriage that DIDN'T EVEN OCCUR! Not a good start, amigo (even if typical . . .) * But, yes, those post-Joseph Smith polygamous marriages with teenagers were always "faithfully" (after all, multiply, etc.) consummated by their often-MUCH OLDER sheikh/husbands. * And, yes, the age disparities increased enormously as older, gray-bearded sheikhs added younger and younger (often teenage) wives to their growing harems. * And for some reason, LDS leaders/ sheikhs at that time were especially inclined to increase those age disparities as well as regularly add teenagers to their harems, while entering their own "golden years": o While in his mid-40's, Brigham Young married 15 y.o. Clara Decker, 16 y.o. Lucy Bigelow (and her 19 y.o. sister, Mary Jane--ON THE SAME DAY), o When Brigham Young was 55, Wilford Woodruff offered him his 14 y.o. daughter, Phebe (but she ended up marrying Lorenzo Snow (he 44, she 17), o Lorenzo Snow vs. some of his other wives' ages: (he 42, she 16), (he 57, she 15) o Orson Hyde: (first wife:19 y.o. Marinda Johnson; last plural wife: (he 60, she 18) o Duncan McArthur: (first wife: she 16; later plural wife: (he 61, she 16) o James Allred: (first wife: he 19, she 17; later wife: (he 73, she 13--Kisner Olson) Now, let's see how ages differed BEFORE polygamy (since the Brighamites keep telling us it was TYPICAL in monogamous marriages at that time for teen girls to marry older men: * Joseph Smith married Emma Hale (His ONLY WIFE EVER) when he was 21 and Emma was 22. * Brigham Young married his first wife, Meriam Works, when he was 23 and she was 18. * John Taylor married Leonara Agnes Cannon in 1833, when he was 24 and she was 36. * When Wilford Woodruff married Phoebe Whittemore Carter in 1837, both were 30 years-old.
Brian, are you going to turn off the comments on your RUclips videos too? I like how you made a post on your FB page that had multiple questions, that no one can give answers to because you censored people from doing so.
@brianhales8971 you start out with ad hominems, this tells me a few things: If someone starts a debate about historical information with ad hominems, it often indicates that the person may be avoiding the actual substance of the argument. Ad hominems are attacks on a person's character or motives rather than addressing the facts or reasoning being presented. This could suggest a few things about the person: 1. Weak Argumentation: They may lack strong evidence or logical reasoning to support their position on the historical topic, so they resort to discrediting the opponent instead. 2. Emotional Reaction: The person may be emotionally invested in their viewpoint and may find it difficult to engage with counterarguments calmly. 3. Lack of Respect for Discourse: They may not value the principles of constructive, respectful debate and may prioritize winning the argument over seeking truth or understanding. 4. Deflection or Distraction: The person could be trying to shift the focus away from the actual issue at hand, possibly because they are uncomfortable with the evidence or arguments being presented. In any case, ad hominem attacks typically weakens the overall quality of the debate and hinders productive discourse.
Brian Hales cherry picks evidence. If he was an honest historian, he would also address all the inconsistencies, editing of documents, Emma, Joseph, and Hyrum’s consistent denials, and so much more. This argument and interview falls flat on its face for ignoring “all” the data. Everything you accuse the deniers of is absolutely happening in this camp. Adding: it’s incredibly disgusting for two men to defend polygamy so wildly and not take into account the hearts of women. Be honest with yourself and say if you’d be willing to watch your wife take on a dozen to 50+ husbands. Heavenly Father loves all of his children equally and cares about their hearts and righteous desires. Polygamy is an imbalance between men and women and it is time to see it for what it truly is. Joseph did not have carefully worded denials. Brian Hales has carefully worded denials. Listen to him twist Joseph’s words repeatedly. It’s so obvious it’s gross.
This video isn't meant to cover every evidence/source. Brian Hales has his books and website articles that go over every piece of counter-evidence you can find.
@@logannance10 not buying it. Brian Hales ignores so many inconsistencies. I’d love to see him take his so called evidence to a court of law and see how well it holds up.
@monicafoster5839 What inconsistencies? If you don't believe his 4 volume set of books published and peer-reviewed on the subject, then maybe you'll believe an attorney like Mark Tensmeyer. He did a long-form interview with Michelle Brady Stone I think you'll appreciate.
@ Hales has really convincing evidence in his volumes and I use to believe all of it, even the idea that a prophet would lie for the Lord or teach different doctrine in private vs public. But the more I studied the scriptures and had access to the documents only historians use to have access to, the more I could see that things didn’t match up. If you only study one side of the doctrine of polygamy, you’re only going to have a strong testimony of the side you studied, and any idea that doesn’t seem to fit, you either push away or twist it to make it fit. Taking all of the history, good and bad, paints a clearer picture that LDS history is not so cut and dry. This nonsense of people arguing about who’s right and who’s wrong is just another reactive of Satan to keep us from trying to understand the real history and the true doctrine. If historians that believe the current narrative were brave enough to address ALL the inconsistencies in their narrative, then maybe we would get somewhere of discovering the truth. Let’s start somewhere simple, like addressing Brigham Young’s speeches. And the slander he spoke of Emma. And then move onto his speeches in Utah. We aren’t discrediting any prophets when we study their words to gain more understanding. But it can surely open our eyes to understanding when things were spoken by the spirit and when they were spoken by men.
Amen sister!@@monicafoster5839 I see this as equal to trying to prove or disprove events in the Book of Mormon or even the Bible. It's going to be a whole lot of spinning wheels. There's a stack of evidence both for and against the possibility of Joseph receiving a command from God and implementing covertly. Which stack is higher is debatable... I'm working on compiling as I have opportunity. It's ugly and I want to get to the bottom of it. No matter what the outcome I know that the Book of Mormon was divinely given and Joseph was indeed a good man and genuine Prophet. 🕊️
Isaiah 55:8-9 comes to my mind. I know God has a glorious plan for us. The problem is that sometimes we as mortals get caught up in the thick of thin things. I personally refuse to question God and His plan. I understand that people don't want to believe in plural marriage. There were members even during the time of Joseph Smith Jr that couldn't accept it. The problem comes when you let it consume you. I don't see anything good coming from denying Joseph's involvement. You ultimately have to justify or find an answer to why you continue as a member. I think you end up traveling down paths that lead you out of the church. You cannot reconcile your membership if you believe Brigham Young was a womanizer and a charlatan. Why is it that members who deny Joseph practiced plural marriage always go to the question. IF HE PRACTICED PLURAL MARRIAGE WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN? Seriously, Do we need to have children to end this plural marriage contention?? Stop and think about what was going on during this time. You would have to believe that God is also a liar. I say that because God promised Joseph that the priesthood and gospel would never again be taken from the earth. But, if Brigham is responsible for what many accuse him of why would God allow him to lead the saints and pass the keys to Brigham?? It basically comes down to the keys of the priesthood. Another scripture that comes to mind is D&C 121: 36-37 If you believe that Brigham was a womanizer you also have to believe the priesthood left the earth and the church upon the death of Joseph and Hyrum. I was born in 1960 and always knew Joseph practiced plural marriage. I TRUST GOD PERIOD!!!
Please consider that argument, the Church falls apart is black and white thinking. Words of Mormon in the Book of Mormon. Start with verse 14 when Church was off track. It turned out well for the Church. Just because Brigham and other early prophets mistakenly practiced polygamy does not mean the Lord deserted the Church or the people. He has grace.
I really like that Alma the elder wasn't part of any chain of succession. King Noah had put down all the priests that might have been considered in a line of succession and replaced them with wicked ones, which included Alma. Yet when Alma repented, he was given power and authority to teach the gospel. That makes sense to me, and it's wonderful that we have the key to discern true prophets from false ones: ye shall know them by their fruits. It's wonderful that we can completely trust in God, as you say.
@@confusedwhynot so true..but its even more than brigham.. ALL the early prophets were evil too, the endowment is a fraud (because it’s from Brigham) and president nelson is bad because he is sealed to wendy. It’s Michelles job yo correct the the church. Pure apostasy
While I don't think Joseph practiced polygamy, I think Brigham Young was a prophet and I'm grateful for the fruits of polygamy in establishing a strong foundation for the restoration.
The real question is What was D and C 132? A conspiracy or a revelation? If a conspiracy, then there is no objective way Brigham Young was a prophet. It really all comes down to that.
It is possible that Joseph taught about sealing to multiple spouses since both Hyrum and Brigham were widowers who remarried. Then Brigham extrapolated from those teachings. I don't think the idea could have come purely from Brigham, I don't think the twelve apostles would have let someone conjure doctrine ex-nihilo, other apostles who apostatized were exomunicated, same would have been done to Brigham if he was soo far off the mark. It is possible that the implementation of polygamy was not done in the correct manner, still studying the topic.
@@ignaciodelgado889 yes Hyrum was a widow but only until 1837 when he married Mary Fielding Smith, who lived until 1852. So he wasn’t a widow when he entered I to plural marriage for the first time. Same is true of BY. His first wife died but he married Mary Angell Young in 1834. She also outlived him and supported him in his polygamous marriages.
@@samuelmoon3051 What I mean is that they both had lost wives which they loved and had children with. Then remarried and also had children with the new wives. If Joseph is teaching about sealings then the question naturally arise of how will all that work out. I believe Joseph taught them that they can be sealed to both wives and be with them in the eternities. From there Brigham could have extrapolated.
A perspective I have heard before. Agree to disagree. If she had faith in God before Joseph died, where did it suddenly go? An amazing attribute of faith is that it sustains you through times of trial. Hers seems to have crumbled.
Brian, I am grateful for the life's-work you have accomplished in collecting polygamy documents. Jacob, you've produced marvelous content on other subjects. The question of LDS polygamy is an argument among brothers, as William Lane Craig says. And on that point, guys, this video is simply awful and embarrassing. It’s painfully obvious that neither of you has seriously engaged with the narrative you’re trying to debunk. I’m only 15 minutes in, and already, the amount of projection, straw-manning, cherry-picking, and sheer ignorance of literally hours of contrary evidence produced addressing your specific arguments is stunning. How can you both claim to be truth seekers if you ignore the counter-evidence? A lie gets halfway 'round the world before the truth can get its boots on. What’s the point of painstakingly addressing your arguments if you just ignore it? You have failed to steelman your opponents' position and, sadly, do nothing here to move this debate forward.
@@PresidentBrighamYoung, my interest is in whether polygamy is of God and whether Joseph taught and practiced it. There are many other areas of church history that require similar hours of research to gain an informed opinion and the martyrdom isn't one where I have done so.
@@GaryLArnell Thanks for showing how seriously we should take you and your mormon protestant opinions. The fact you can't just say 'no' says it all LOL.
There is no debate. There is simply the truth everybody knows, including every prophet and apostle right up to the present, aside from a group of spiritually immature members who can't emotionally handle the issue and use revisionist history and misinterpretation of scripture to get around the issue.
@@PresidentBrighamYoung, "no", I don't think Willard Richards and John Taylor killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith, but church history has been so obfuscated and corrupted that I'm unwilling to be certain about any disputed part of it unless I do my own investigating.
Those who claim that plural marriage is always an abomination, they should be aware that you do not have to practice it to commit abomination: You can not support any sexual relation between 2 males You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22 You will not allow your mother, sister, daughter to wear trousers, ties or any man clothes “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 22:5 You shall not lie. Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight. Proverbs 12:2 You can not support any gay agenda. He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 17:15 Careful being an arrogant person. Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished. Proverbs 16:5 You can not judge wrong. A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight. Proverbs 11:1 Be careful being dishonest. or all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 25:16
Personally I don't think it's hard to believe that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy at all. Here is just one of many reasons why people might suspect the evidence used to support Joseph's polygamy. This is the ruling from the judge of the temple law case and what he stated about the women proclaiming to be Joseph's wives. Amazing how this is often left out of the conversation: "It is charged by the Respondents, as an echo of the Utah Church, that Joseph Smith, "the Martyr," secretly taught and practiced polygamy; and the Utah contingent furnishes the evi- dence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrqunding the alleged 'inter- course, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in "nest hiding." In view of the contention of the Salt Lake party, that polygamy obtained at Nauvoo as early as 1841, it must be a little embarrassing to President Woodruff of that organi- zation when he is confronted, as he was in the evidence in this case, with a published card in the church organ at Nauvoo in October, 1843, certifying that he knew of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and that the "secret wife system," charged against the church, was a ereature of invention by one Dr. Bennett, and that they knew of no such society. That certificate was signed by the leading members of the church, including John Taylor the former President of the Utah Church. And a, similar certificate was published by the Ladies Relief Society of the same place, signed by Emma Smith, the wife of Joseph Smith, and Phoebe Woodruff, wife of the present President Woodruff. No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood, and his wife, Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order, and was enciente at the time of Joseph's dea,th. But if it were conceded that Joseph Smith, and Hyrum, his brother, did secretly practice concubinage, is the church to be charged with those liaisons, and the doctrine of polygamy to be predicated thereon of the church? If so, I suspect the doctrine of polygamy might be imputed to many of the Gentile churches. Certainly it was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized, as a doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young."
Jacob is so cute how he thinks that not having any insider spilling the beans means it must not be true. I get that he is ignoring the fact that the insiders had as much to lose as Brigham by revealing the truth and that he has convinced himself that blood atonement was just a phrase and not really executed, but the lack of insiders revealing the truth doesn't mean anything. Let's not forget what the temple oath they took back then was.
Jacob’s arrogance is nauseating. Franklin Richards was not in the high council meeting so whatever he heard is minimum secondhand. Plus, section 132 makes no mention of Levirate marriage.
Commenter2121--please assure us all that you will join all future comment boards as the Lord's true, living, and restored church goes through this most crucial juncture since Joseph walked out of the grove (or since Brigham Young foisted polygamy upon the church, and tried to frame Joseph for it). We REALLY NEED your CLEAR Voice and courage as we go down this road together . . .
MBS's movement is flagging. The only thing keeping it going is the prurience of self-obsessed persons who will stop at nothing to militate against the character of the prophets and apostles.
Maybe, amigo, she is simply trying to sustain and support the Lord's founding prophet, Joseph Smith, against those who "militate against the character of the Lord's founding prophet and apostle," especially as the evidence mounts that Joseph simply told the truth.
@@jonterry9843 That's not what she is doing. She is attacking the prophets. She has been made aware of her Korihor-like dissonance, and still insists on doubling down on it.
Ok but there were no children from any other women and Joseph. If he practiced polygamy this is just unreasonable. This is the hardest evidence there is for this not being polygamy in the way we think about it
No it isn't. The evidence that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy is overwhelming and conclusive. At least seven women testified that they had sex with Smith. The possibility that Smith didn't produce any children with those women has no bearing on the evidence that he originated polygamy.
Yes! This is the hard evidence. What he had around 30 other wives and ZERO children. But 9 children with Emma Hale. This is the stark evidence that he is innocent of the claims against him.
So no children is synonym of no plural marriage. What about that no children is because he had no sex with the majority of the wives. And also do you think that you get pregnant a woman just for staring at her. The probability to get pregnant a woman having sex once or twice is not big.
So Brigham Young just made it up or he corrupted it?
So no children=no polygamy can you think that no children is because he had not sex with the majority of them and when he had sex was an unusual thing? Do you believe that Joseph can get them pregnant just having sex once?
Because the revisionists have, in their typical dishonest fashion, been claiming that President Hinckley said plural marriage "was not doctrinal" - in which they imply that he thought the teaching and practice was always wrong - here is the FULL section of the transcript where the subject is discussed, and not a selectively edited clip taken out of context by those attempting to deceive. As you can see, he was referring to those apostates who continued to practice polygamy against the teachings of the Church in the present day. NOT from the time of Joseph to the Manifesto...
[Here the subject of polygamy is brought up]
Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah - before we get back to morals and morals, is - the big story, if you don’t know it, is polygamy in Utah; there’s been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson - is the governor - of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?
Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.
Larry King: You could have a certain amount of…
Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from - between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That’s 118 years ago. It’s behind us.
Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?
Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don’t belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.
Larry King: Are you surprised that there’s, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?
Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don’t know how much it is. I don’t know how pervasive it is.
Larry King: Should there be arrests?
Gordon B. Hinckley: It’s matter of civil procedure. The church can’t do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever.
Larry King: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it?
Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It’s a civil offense. It’s in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We’re totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that’s a responsibility of civil officers.
Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?
Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It’s outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.
Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying - they told “The Salt Lake Tribune” - that it’s difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it’s secretive. There’s a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty - they say they do, in gathering evidence.
Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you’re forceful here tonight, but maybe - they’ve been saying that it’s rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know. We’ll consider it.
Larry King: I’m giving you an idea.
Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.
Larry King: Would you look better if you were…
Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know that we would or not. As far as I’m concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.
Larry King: You condemn it.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
[Here the conversation changes to Christ in the Americas]
Hinckley means that it is not CURRENTLY doctrinal, not that it was never doctrinal.
@@fightingfortruth9806 Exactly. But the revisionists keep posting simply that he said "it wasn't doctrinal" in order to misrepresent the facts and deceive others.
They’re arguments just seem so disingenuous
Perhaps doctrinal in the sense of divine command for a temporal condition, but not doctrinal in the sense that it’s part of eternal law.
Personally I think we should avoid the use of the word “doctrine” as for many it connotes Divine Law - but it’s clear Hinckley views this as a temporary commandment. It’s an interpretation to assume this is carried into the divine order celestially.
Nice. Thanks for sharing.
What was the point of Joseph practicing polygamy if there were no children?
Its interesting how the church is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand he did practice polygamy, had up to 40 wives one as young as 14, married wives while their husbands served missions, married pregnant women to then seal those children to him and then on the other hand you have people that want to believe he didn't practice polygamy to make church history more digestible however if you believe he didn't practice polygamy that means D&C 132 with forged, apostles were corrupted, and Brigham Young either made it up or further corrupted it.
Both places leave the church in a hard spot.
Notice how Jacob is giddy about the Nauvoo high council meeting, but leaves out that Joseph and Hyrum were specifically asked about this meeting and what was given as revelation and shared. They explained that the revelation was in answer to scenarios similar to Levirate marriage and that any reference to polygamy was regarding past times and not current day. This completely corroborates what Joseph taught on July 16th, 1843 and what Hyrum taught in April 1844. He also clarifies that Cowles and Law are being deceptive and are turning Gods truth into a lie. These are contemporary statements that follow a completely consistent pattern that the Smiths followed to their death. Not decades late affidavits, many of which are under motivated circumstances. So, who’s cherry picking?
AMEN,
June 7th, 1844 is not decades later
Preach
This isn't the win you think it is. For a long time, Michelle claimed that Joseph and Hyrum's responses to the meeting were "fake" and "untrustworthy." Now she acknowledges their reality and interprets their responses to mean exactly what they say. Interesing how Joseph and Hyrum give different answers that allude to things involved in D&C 132. Almost as if they were telling partial truths in pursuit of still keeping it confidential. The fact they gave different answers and that the answers were those, it is very safe to draw the conclusion that D&C 132 was the revelation and they were trying to keep it confidential for the time being. This is not the win you guys think it is. Y'all just have to interpret it that way now that y'all have acknowledge the validity of Joseph and Hyrum's responses. Keep coping mormon protestants LOL.
@@PresidentBrighamYoung "..but what there may be some among you who are not sufficiently skilled in Masonry as to keep a secret,.."-Joseph Smith addressing the subject with the Relief Society
Brian, what do priesthood keys have to do with polygamy and why does a view of Joseph-Smith-as-a-monogamist destroy faith in current leaders and their priesthood keys?
If Joseph wasn’t a polygamist, then he did indeed condemn all forms of polygamy. Which means that section 132 would be a forgery. Which would also imply that all the apostles were evil liars and adulterers which would mark them as apostates to God. They could not hold and pass down their priesthood and keys of authority because they had lost it. Which means the current church and leaders would have no authority.
Do you see a way around this conclusion?
@@bilagaana1238yes, Brigham was fully convinced that polygamy was of God. I think him putting it on Joseph, saying it was taught by Joseph to convince others to believe it was not him thinking he was lying and deceiving but he was doing a good thing because it was for a greater cause for others to practice it and receive exaltation. Brigham taught that to receive eternal life you must have plural wives… other prophets and leaders were handed down this teaching and they believed it. That’s how false traditions/teachings happen.
It doesn’t have to be the church is fallen and all is lost. God has a way of course correcting his children and his church. “No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing” We are no longer taught that polygamy is the way to receive exaltation. President Hinckley even said on Larry King Live “polygamy is not doctrinal” so was he lying???
It can be corrected just like all the other things Brigham taught that have now been denounced.
@@bilagaana1238 nope and I agree.
Notice how the revisionists don't even say, "While I don't think Joseph practiced plural marriage, or practiced it differently, I believe Brigham Young and other successors were also prophets so they were following the Lord's will." Nope. Their go-to conclusion is Brigham and many other prophets and apostles were so clueless, so bad, and so out of touch with the Lord that they essentially taught and practiced what they see as institutionalized adultery for decades. This shows plural marriage itself is really the issue for them. It has nothing to do with what Joseph did or did not do. That's just so they can feign loyalty to him and the Restoration while crapping on everyone else. If something came out where they could no longer deny Joseph's involvement in plural marriage, they'd throw him under the bus just as quickly as they have Brigham. Much like the Proclamation on the Family, one's view of Brigham Young's prophetic mantle is quickly become a real sifter in the Church. Every single prophet and apostle up to the present has maintained the principle of plural marriage began with Joseph. But the revisionists think they know better. And they have to rewrite history and misinterpret (or throw out) scripture in order to maintain their false narrative.
I think most would admit that it’s the doctrine of eternal plural marriage that’s concerning.
Jared, I mentioned this to you before, but I think it’s worth restating here.
The current practice, where a man can be sealed to multiple women but a woman can only be sealed to one man, does present emotional and psychological challenges, especially in situations involving remarriage today. There’s an inequality here. Is this doctrine or policy? Is this divine law or man’s misinterpretation?
In Jacob 2:30, the idea of raising up seed is given as the primary justification for polygamy. Let’s grant this interpretation for the sake of argument. If we charitably assume that it’s about fostering a covenantal environment for children, it still feels very much tied to the conditions of a fallen, mortal world where such structures might help navigate complex social and spiritual challenges to protect covenant people from being overwhelmed by outside forces. Isn’t it fair to recognize that these same burdens would not be imposed in a celestial realm?
In modern practice, the ability of a man to be sealed to multiple women seems more tied to policy than to a clear doctrinal explanation that would necessitate plural marriage in the afterlife. The idea of sealings in eternity seems more focused on ensuring that family connections are preserved, and current teachings emphasize that all such matters will be resolved justly by God. I think this aligns very much with Joseph’s teachings.
There’s a lot of uncertainty regarding how these relationships will be structured in the hereafter. Even Church leaders have often expressed that we don’t know exactly how things will work, but that the justice and mercy of God will ensure that everything is done fairly and lovingly. There may still be lingering asymmetries as a result of the earthly practice of polygamy.
Providing more flexibility for sealings in life, accompanied by an emphasis on faith in God’s ability to sort everything out in eternity would relieve individuals of the burden of having to make difficult choices now, trusting that divine wisdom will provide solutions that meet everyone’s needs, including the concerns about children and blended families.
I've seen you post this before and I agree. As big a critic as I am of the revisionists, people might be surprised to know that I tend to think when all is said and done that eternal marriage will be after the pattern of Adam and Eve - one man and one woman. Plural marriage is a tool the Lord has used at times throughout history to establish the Covenant among imperfect people in a fallen world. The sealings today seem to be done in such a way that the links are in place regardless of what is ultimately decided hereafter. Finally, one can recognize the challenge plural marriage was then, or the way sealings are done now, without rewriting history or throwing out scripture, which is what the revisionists are doing.
You have no idea
@@lifetaketwo7662 About what?
Very well said, Jared. Thank you for that.
1:32:45 Just Finished. Thank you both for sharing the mainline believing narrative and for detailing where those who believe the words and claims of both Joseph and Emma. I understand it’s bitter and antagonistic to the message of the Book of Mormon which Joseph claimed to be the most correct book on earth.
As problematic as this issue seems to be for the church and its leadership, it’s a fair concern and worthy of further investigation.
For those that have concluded that polygamy is not of God from scripture...an argument that Joseph was practicing polygamy is an argument that the church founder was practicing an "abominable" practice. Then the task becomes to discover what other things Joseph got wrong. Im curious what you feel is more damaging...believing that the church founder was in apostasy...or his successor?
@@Preparednessman for the intellectually challenged holding onto Joseph as a true prophet trumps the historical record.
@dr33776 why because it doesn't fit anti's propaganda that Joseph wasn't a prophet.
Historical events and first hand accounts that aren't tainted by an axe to grind against Joseph Smith overwhelmingly show Joseph Smith was a true prophet of Jesus Christ.
@@dr33776 Brother Dr33776, have you noticed how often "the intellectually challenged" begin their arguments with phrases like "for the intellectually challenged"?
@@jonterry9843 you are intellectually challenged if you believe in a historical Book of Mormon or book of Abraham, so my statement stands.
@@dr33776 See?
I have purchased Brian’s Joseph Smith’s Polygamy and am in the middle of reading it. I learned of it through reading some of Don Bradley’s research. I watched Michelle Stone interview Brian. In Michelle Stone I have never seen anything closer to flat earther logic and outright denial when it comes to the historical record. Brian has done the most complete historical examination and gives as clear of picture as possible that Joseph Smith introduced and practiced polygamy. Brian’s work on polygamy has been fascinating and is first class historic scholarship.
Great comment and I agree totally
Michelle Stone is a black hole of insanity.
@@richardallen383 I don’t think you’ve watched Michelle’s channel then
@@Hmcc0712.. oh lord 10:31 🤦♀️
@@Hmcc0712 Michelle’s logic is inane. If what Michelle says is correct then Joseph Smith was a fraud from day one; every prophet that followed Joseph Smith is a fraud; all of the BofM is a fraud, all of the D&C is a fraud. Michelle is focused in on a very narrow set of historical data points that can be interpreted several ways. Michelle believes her way is the only way to interpret the historical record. Her way is obviously not the only way and because of the logical inconsistencies it’s highly probable her way is wrong. There is mental illness in fixating on one solution to the exclusion of all others. Fixation is a mind closing phenomena that inhibits finding truth. The multiple lines of inquiry with respect to the many many doctrines Joseph Smith taught that are unique, across all religious concepts set him apart as either a genius in his own right or as being infused with genius from God making it highly doubtful Joseph Smith is a fraud. But you don’t need to go down all these avenues of religious doctrine that Joseph opened, you need only to seek knowledge of truth through the Holy Ghost. For anyone who has been imbued with divine knowledge through the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith is a prophet, the Michelle Stones, Lori Vallows, and dozens of other who think they have figured out some unknown truth are side shows of fixation on a narrow concept that will never be verified in the arena of human inquiry.
I noticed that they speed past the last part of the May26 quote "...and I can prove them all perjurers" ...didn't even read it, much less explain it
51:57 Yes Brigham and his followers won so hard in that case when the judge ruled against them, in favor of the RLDS church’s claim that Joseph Smith did not originate polygamy…
It is not true to say that the RLDS church admits Joseph was a polygamist. It was one liberal RLDS historian (who never represented anyone other than himself) who thought Joseph was a polygamist for reasons that are weak and had already been debunked for generations by others.
Joseph's GG Grandson who was a progressive Marxist and potentially gay began their rejection of the fullness. Young rejected the fullness after he staged a KU DE TA and wacked the Brothers Smith so he could he could have a nesting ground for his criminal and trafficking empire.
So you trust the government/and a gentile court to know the mind and will of God. The Roman Court also ruled that Jesus Christ was not the messiah and had him killed. According to your logic, Jesus Christ wasn’t the son of God because a “court” said so!
@@cameronsmith5786 Government has never been wrong!
If they won, then why did they back track and then eventually admit Joseph did practice polygamy. That is there current official stance.
i think they did admit it. they didnt have a choice. they refuse to admit joseph did it to not get mobbed too.
43:03 why were plural marriage sealing supposedly happening in 1842 if D&C 132 wasn’t given until 1843? Why did Joseph have to be commanded by an angel with a flaming sword to practice plural marriage if he was so afraid to practice it after it was revealed in 1843, oh wait, he was already doing it? This makes no sense
Truly the timeline is nonsensical. But Brigham had to show the US Govt that his polygamy was started by Joseph, that it existed at the formation of the Church and a significant percentage of members lived it. Thus the sudden surge of polygamy when Brigham introduced Section 132, 8 years AFTER the martyrdom.
Essentially, 132 is more like the Salamander letter than any of Joseph's plain and simple revelations from the Lord, like 25, or 121 for example.
The flaming sword is also a Masonic symbol for Lucier--i.e. the light bearer. Black Beard the Pirate had it on his ship and was a 33degree Mason.
Angle with a flaming sword is old Mormon folklore....never happened
Section 132 was asked for in connection with specific circumstances. specifically it was asked for in relation to Emma Smith in response to what was going on with these matters at that time. As noted many things in it were previously revealed. This is pretty well documented. If not mistaken, the Joseph Smith Papers has information on this if you care to reference source documents.
@@jojr5145 "As noted many things in it were previously revealed. This is pretty well documented."
There is zero documentation for this, only post hoc puzzle fitting, with people trying incessantly to jam polygamy-shaped pieces into a puzzle where they clearly don't fit.
What are you talking about with the LDS church already winning the debate in the late 1880’s? The LDS church lost the temple lot case.
Exactly! Oh how people love to gloss over the fact that Joseph was found innocent of the crime of polygamy in a court of law. The parts of that case I’ve seen so far show just how ridiculously unreliable those witnesses of his polygamy really were. I really need to read the rest-popcorn at the ready.
@@davidmaughan4472 Pretty simple--their side lost.
@@davidmaughan4472you should do more research into the Temple Lot case. It's fascinating to see the players and their motivations!
Brian, why didn't you finish Joseph's words "I am the same man and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers"
Why would he? What's the relevance?
@@cranzag No one was accusing Joseph Smith of practicing celestial plural marriage. It may seem like I'm parsing words, but we must rise above our presentism to put the event in accurate historical context.
@@brianhales8971 Did joseph ever use the words celestial plural marriage? Were those the words he used when introducing the practice to others?
@@mcable217, the very use of "celestial plural marriage" is a form of presentism itself. That was not the term used in Nauvoo. Scripturally, it's the "doctrine of having many wives and concubines", but in Nauvoo it wasn't even that yet. It was "spiritual wives" or "spiritual wifery". It wasn't until the Brigham/Utah era that the Saints started coming up with other names for it.
@@GaryLArnell exactly-why would Joseph deny a practice that doesn’t even exist?
The movement will never die out because truth always prevails in the end.
Question for both of you. Remove Joseph from the equation, do you believe that members of the church who don’t believe in polygamy are in apostasy and should be disciplined? If so, how do you reconcile that with those who did not believe in the priesthood ban and pushed back on it, despite the leaders teaching that it was from God? Turns out the “priesthood ban deniers” were right and church leaders were teaching false doctrine and a false narrative for almost 130 years. Sure, some holdouts may still think the ban is from God but the church has disavowed all of the past reasons for it and has had to essentially acknowledge that it did not come from Joseph and did not come by revelation.
@Commenter2121 I still think it is possible it was from God, it is not the first time that God has withheld the priesthood on the base of lineage, only levites could hold the priesthood in Moses time.
@@ignaciodelgado889 Introducing the priesthood to one group before others is a lot different than giving it to everyone except one restricted group based on ideas that are now disavowed as false. I’d highly encourage you to read Second Class Saints and/or Let’s Talk about Race and Priesthood. It’s extremely clear that the ban came from Brigham and God had nothing to do with it.
@Commenter2121 How is it different? The Gentiles had to wait thousands of years or be circumcised to receive the blessings of the Covenant. The Old testament Example is even more restrictive than the LDS Church Hiistory example.
@@ignaciodelgado889 Do you believe in Brighams explanation of the curse of Cain, or Orson Pratts idea of a lack of valiance in the pre existence? Do you believe that an interracial couple and their child should voluntarily have their blood spilt as a blood atonement for their sin? Just be careful of what you’re defending, this is the definition of using Gods name in vain.
@Commenter2121 the reasons for the ban could be wrong still the ban itself could be right. Was circumcision God's will?
Michelle Stone is offended and triggered and wants to speak to the manager.
The Church isn't triggered.
No, they're not literally walking around like an emperor with no clothes on, because too many have called out the "nakedness" of the "Joseph Smith is an adulterer/lech/pedophile/whoremonger" argument.
Brian wasn't ordered by his handlers to put out another completely worthless video (which doesn't tackle any current evidence) per his handlers.😂
Nope.
Polygamist men are triggered and offended. How dare anyone fall out of line and defend the reputation of the Prophet of the Restoration.
@@ImogeneBettr What are you talking about? Can't Joseph Smith's reputation remain intact whether or not he practiced polygamy? I believe so. In fact, there is so much misinformation and disinformation out there when most people that spew supposed church history just regurgitate things they don't know and are not willing to say 'I don't know'. Michelle is one of these in my opinion.
@@ImogeneBettr except for the fact that he was a sexual deviant and predator
@ImogeneBettr what polygamist men? Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints currently don't practice polygamy as far as I know. Am I missing something?
I have never had a problem with polygamy. Whether it was practiced or not doesn't matter to me. But one question that keeps bugging me. There are all these women that claim to be married to Joseph, but not one of them produced a child with Joseph Smith. So what exactly was Joseph "practicing?"
Some form of birth control, and it is only my opinion but I think he practiced this birth control to try and keep Emma from blowing her top completely. Maybe Joseph knew Emma would divorce him, and perhaps she would lose her exaltation. The minds of men can be difficult to understand, but these types of considerations do happen.
@raddiemutto7934 I think it was more along the lines of following what the Lord told him to do while also trying to keep Emma happy by being sealed to other women but not having sexual relationships with them. I only think that because it sounds like the way I would try to deal with the problem 😅.
@@raddiemutto7934 That is dumb. "raise up righteous seed". NO way. Joseph never lied!
@@raddiemutto7934 Hmmm 35 wives and no child.
@@cameronvantassell9483 Why do people just make up stuff?
@2:35 “The way that you go about determining if that happened is through methods of historical analysis” Yes Jacob, that is exactly how it is done. Accompanied by prayer and seeking the Spirit. That method of historical analysis looks at all the evidence from all points of view. I have seen Brian on multiple interviews including his one with Michele Stone. Brian’s approach is strictly faith based as he even commented and implied that since this is the official position of the church, anyone going against it should be disciplined as an apostate. Brian leaves out an insurmountable pile of historical evidence while he refuses to even consider that maybe, just maybe it was not Joseph Smith that was lying for the Lord in all of his consistent polygamy denials and open efforts to rid the church of this scourge, it was Brigham Young who was lying for the devil. When you look at this issue honestly and not from the perspective that Joseph was the liar and deceiver but it was Brigham, the historical evidence is absolutely conclusive. It was Brigham who lied, it was Brigham who altered documents, it was Brigham who sought to destroy Emma and the Smith Family who knew the truth. It was Brigham who manufactured evidence including the never before heard of D&C 132 that replaced Joseph’s D&C 101 on monogamy. Just read D&C 132, it is so full of errors and paints a picture of a god that views his daughters as little more than property. That was Brigham’s view of women, not Joseph’s who loved his wife nor was it the view of the God that I worship who would never subject his daughters to this evil abomination. This is not just historical, this is deeply theological as who could worship a god who views women in the manner that Brigham Young taught.
Well said.
Amen!!! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
@@davidmaughan4472 D&C 121 answers that question. I think it is the most difficult issue that the Lord has to deal with in his church. Many are called, few are chosen. I know our Father weeps and mourns as a result of the terrible conseques that result from the sinful choices that those who have been called to serve in his church make. When the Lord said that "It is the nature and disposition of almost all men", it was not divine hyperbole. I believe this is precisely why Nephi taught us to never put our trust in man. In fact, he said we are cursed if we do. Forgive errant leaders, yes. But we must end the practice of excusing them. Recall that in 3 Nephi Christ taught that there will be true and false prophets. He did not say that it was by their priesthood ordination that we could discern the difference. It was by their fruits. See 3 Nephi 14:15-23
King David was called as was Judas.
Unfortunately, this episode was disappointing at best. It is clear from the recent flurry of videos of those advocating Joseph practiced polygamy that they are not on solid ground and are desperately trying to keep their house of cards up when the man behind the curtain has already been revealed.
Both sides of the debate can make compelling arguments from the available evidence. Thus, relying upon the historical record alone to find the truth of whether Joseph practiced polygamy or not is foolish. I believe the BofM had something to say about that-cursed are those who put their trust in man or make flesh their arm. No one should be trusting what men or women had or have to say on the issue. It is “good” to be “learned” only when one hearkens to the counsel of God. The counsel of God can be found in the scriptures and His messengers’ words. The historical record on this issue must be looked at through the lens of the scriptures and what His messenger Joseph said and taught.
An honest look at the evidence (both scriptural and historical) will show to the seeker of truth that the polygamy narrative pinned on Joseph just doesn’t hold water and that there is clearly something amiss going on. The scriptures revealed through Joseph clearly condemn polygamy, especially the Book of Mormon, which Joseph said was the most “correct” book on earth. The loophole in Jacob 2:30 has been debunked thoroughly and disagrees with the BofM itself. Joseph never corrected the BofM on its polygamy condemnation, and continued to publish it throughout his life, and even wrote “one wife” in his own personal copy at the polygamy section in Jacob.
There is no evidence at all that Joseph ever said or taught the words “celestial plural marriage” (not found at all in the JSP) and that is not a proper or honest distinction to use between Joseph’s “denials.” Joseph and Hyrum specifically condemned “polygamy” and “spiritual wives”. The denial portion of the episode failed to directly mention the Hiram Brown case. Hales’ denial paper does bring up the case of Hiram Brown, but fails to actually quote what both Hyrum and Joseph wrote about it - “Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity.” This is unequivocal. Polgamy by definition would include any form, sanctioned or not, of a man taking many wives (celestial plural marriage, spiritual wifery, plurality of wives, etc.).
The episode states that there is not one dissenting voice that spilled the beans. Yet Brigham Young himself spilled the beans and dissented from the established narrative when in 1874 he stated the Lord revealed to him the doctrine of polygamy while on his mission to England. This is only one of Brigham’s changing stories about its introduction to him. BY’s own teachings and practice of polygamy go against the BofM. Another dissenter, Charles Derry, who was a Brighamite Mormon, left Utah, joined the RLDS Church, and in his autobiography stated “Joseph F. Smith says the ‘revelation on polygamy’ was given at different times. William W. Phelps says he wrote part of it, also that Brigham and Joseph wrote part, and that Clayton wrote a part. While Clayton swears that he wrote it all, Brigham says ‘Phelp’s lies’” (p. 397). “The Basis of Brighamite Polygamy” by Jason Briggs, p. 8 confirms with a second witness by stating “the process of this shaping [the creation of D&C 132] was given some years since, upon the stand in this city, by W. W. Phelps, as follows: ‘We were some ten or twelve days in writing it-I wrote some of it.’” This shows a claim that the D&C 132 revelation took 10 to 12 days to write and Phelps wrote a part of it. This would also accord with Phelps’ practice of fabricating another polygamy revelation-the Lamanite polygamy revelation Phelps wrote to BY in 1861.
The episode relied upon Clayton’s July 12, 1843 journal entry. However, Hales explicitly admits that the Clayton journals were “re-copied”. Any honest historian or seeker of truth must then admit that Clayton’s journals cannot be reliable as we don’t know what the original entries were or if he added or deleted stuff or even when he copied them. The episode tried to corroborate Clayton’s entry by quoting Joseph Smith’s journal entry for the same date. However, they failed to explain how JS’s journal was actually kept by Willard Richards for that entry. Richards was writing BY daily entries in a couple letters from July 7 to Aug. 23 1843. Richards wrote nothing to BY about a revelation on July 12. In fact, Richards wrote that the revelation was on July 29 and that he had not seen it. This shows that the JS journal entry was not written until at least July 29 or perhaps much later. The episode failed to also note the inconsistencies and historical problems with Clayton’s July 12 entry.
Why believe what Ebenezer Robinson said in 1888 about what he said Hyrum taught him, when we have Hyrum’s actual contemporaneous words that contradict and go against what Robinson said? Hyrum’s May 14, 1843 and April 9, 1844 sermons condemn not only the practice of polygamy but the teaching of it, even if from an angel - directly contradicting Robinson. It is not good historical practice or common sense to reject contemporaneous and direct evidence in favor of secondary evidence given decades and decades later.
The episode quotes from people, both followers of Brighamite Mormonism and not, about the August 12, 1843 High Council Meeting. There was confusion expressed on why people who didn’t practice polygamy or follow BY would lie-such as Leonard Soby or Austin Cowles. It is baffling how the presenters failed to mention what Hyrum Smith (and Joseph) himself said about it and the revelation, especially since he is the one who shared the revelation with the council. In the June 10, 1844 Nauvoo City council minutes, it is recorded for Hyrum: “spoke to show the falsehood of Austin Cowles in relation to the revelation referred to- that it referred to former days [and] not the present time as stated by Cowles. Mayor said he had never preached the revelation in private as he had in public - had not taught it to the anointed in the Church in private which many confirmed.” Here Hyrum and Joseph show Cowles is a liar. In addition, Hyrum says the revelation referred to “former days” and “not the present time”. Extremely clear that the revelation that was read did not refer to D&C 132 which clearly has stuff about the present time. The monogamy deniers have yet to provide a good answer to this. Joseph’s statement also clearly contradicts the many statements made later (especially by the anointed ones) that Joseph taught them the revelation in private.
How is it that the statements, scriptures, and sources from Joseph and Hyrum themselves about polygamy are clear and consistent (always against it), but that the Brighamites, traitors, apostates, historians, and others are the ones that have to change their words (sermons, journal entries, articles, teachings, etc.), and edit, clarify, introduce caveats, perform mental gymnastics, etc. to make their narrative work? When God sends one or two of his servants with a clear and unmistakable message, it always takes a chorus of naysayers to drown out the truth - hence the many voices needed to go against Joseph’s scriptures, teachings, sermons, etc. that condemn polygamy. “He condemned the principle in toto & warned those present against going into those evils, for they would surely bring a -- (Curse) upon their heads” JSP Documents, Vol. 13, p. 285
Dude, no one is going to read your response in here, because it is too long and because they are protestant style proof texting of the past that is not convincing. This video goes deep into the evidence, your message is just your opinion that is not as convincing. Have a proper conversation with some of these experts like this video, and perhaps you would not waste so much time by typing long sections that no one will read fully. And besides, Jacob "loophole" in the Book of Mormon has not been debunked, I have heard the argument and it is pathetic, appeals to special pleading. Also Abraham had many wives and concubines to whose children he gave gifts as they departed, but Iisac inherited everything. The law of Moses even legislated polygamy practise. Nothing in your rant deals with these facts convincingly.
D&C 132 was printed publicly by the first President of the LDS on June 7 1844, Joseph Smith had that press burnt. All of Joseph's denial's have loopholes typically "keys" or "yet to be revealed" it is the need for loopholes that is the education.
Hiram Brown practiced polygamy WITHOUT Keys, thus he was cut off.
So how do you explain "if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;" line in jacob 2:30 if it's only condemning polygamy?
June 7, 1844 it was publicly printed
by the LS First President
Finally some clarity. No one discusses the elephant in the room. Thanks for clarifying the obvious. Yes, if Joseph was not a polygamist then those men who followed Joseph were not prophets, but lied. If Joseph was a polygamist and just lied about it, his whole life, then the church is protected sort of. Just throw Joseph under the bus and all is well. It really is a mess. One side says Joseph took other men's wives and fourteen year old wives and the other side says, no he did not have any wives but Emma, but the church is true. The wisdom of Solomon is lacking I think.
How about we simply quit throwing fig leaves on the history and Brigham Young etc. We can trust the power and grace of God to work through the mess created by the polygamists--which did not include Joseph Smith.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4cexactly
@Thoughtful Faith have on Connor Boyack to discuss this please
We answered all of your questions, Jacob. We asked you hard questions and you did not answer any of ours but ran away. Be better.
I'm interviewing Brian tomorrow, but you've laid out clearly he practiced Plural marriage. It's case closed in my mind.
@@mormonismwiththemurph looking forward to watching it
The issue I've seen with polygamy deniers is that they are emotionally invested in believing Joseph wasn't a polygamist as in he can't possibly be a prophet if he was so their testimonies hinge on a false hope of history. I've even been screamed at by people for saying George Washington had slaves because some regard the founding fathers as inspired as the prophets.
You are not the only one with a completely closed mind on this issue, Brother Murph.
Though it is obvious that people like Brothers Jacob and Brian really, really wish those who believe and sustain the prophet Joseph, and the Book of Mormon prophet, Jacob (in Ch. 2-3), and the Lord (whom Jacob directly quotes in those chapters)--when each of them condemned polygamy as an abomination--would also just close their minds . . .
@jonterry9843 you are choosing to ignore verse 30, which reads:
"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." (Jacob 2:30)
Also, look at the last half of Jacob 2:25
"...I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph"
Why the loins of Joseph? By definition of polygamy haters, his very existence would be an abomination to the Lord. He was, after all, the first son of Jacob's second wife, Rachel.
You’ve also refused to actually engage with arguments from the other side. I’m sorry but your reasoning has been an appeal to authority. You’re a smart guy that generally seems open to asking hard questions, I hope that at some point you’ll be willing to put in the time. How many more of these Brian Hales interviews do we need? Have Michelle on again, or Whitney Horning, or Jeremy Hoop.
This is not a debunking. It’s repeating the same old info and does not address any of the recent claims raised by those questioning the accepted narrative. That’s why it doesn’t hit.
and which are those recent claims raised?
42:47 Jacob, but how do you know w and s stood for wed and sealed? That’s not good evidence…
He says we can't look back at history and pretend to know what was meant then..... yet HE knows.
@@stephaniesantiago1210 exactly
Fabulous question. These guys drop too many unproven assertions . . . Glad you call them out . . .
@@stephaniesantiago1210 Ooh-la-la . . . a little slap of cold water there . . . NICE.
At his 100th birthday event, Pres. Nelson referred to his deceased wife Danzel and his devotion to her, and then referred to the blessing of his current wife, Wendy, and called her his "eternal companion". Everyone knows what that likely means, which to me sounds quite beautiful, although I certainly don't advocate polygamy and agree that monogamy is the norm.
@@lemjwp1756 ya, so what? Nelson is a Gadianton. He's a false prophet.
Brigham Young did not teach that monogamy is the norm. He taught that polygamy is essential to exhalation
@@maskofscience Brigham taught celestial marriage is required for exhaltation, which is the same now. Plural marriage was a specific command for a period of time that lasted 50 years, for the purpose of "raising up seed" in the desert mountains where the saints had fled. Not everyone was permitted to practice it. It allowed the church to build a foundation of families on which to thrive. Hundreds of thousands of missionaries resulted from that foundation. There have been other time limited practices in other dispensations, such as animal sacrifice, circumcision, restricted diet, etc. There are also multiple citations from past prophets and apostles that monongamous couples would also be exhalted.
@@lemjwp1756 Polygamy and "many wives and concubines" is ALWAYS a whoredom. Section 132 takes Jesus Christ from being the Chief Cornerstone and gives Gods glory to man. Hmmm, reminds me of someone elses plan...
@@lemjwp1756 The Church survived in SPITE of polygamy, not because of it. D&C132 is a fake, salamander letter filled with false doctrine denying the power of Christ unto salvation.
Thus, the Church and its historians or "scribes" have taken Jesus Christ out of the Chief Cornerstone and instead inserted Section 132 and modern prophets. But not to worry, we still for sure worship Christ--or is it now the Temple and the "Covenant Path?"
The Book of Mormon tells us to repent--what is he talking about? We tend to see ourselves as the hero of the Allegory of the Olive Tree and all the good revelations--but not God. And surely we cannot be who God is talking to when he is chastising--that's those nonmember gentiles that don't have The Book of Mormon--right?
“There were only three classes that followed Brigham Young to Utah: knaves, fools, and those whose circumstances and environments compelled them to go.” - Emma Smith, as quoted by Edmund Briggs
I can’t wait to meet her ❤❤❤
@@ThomasFackrell it is no secret that Emma was bitter after Joseph’s death. That she didn’t understand the proper order of succession is a testament to her faith in Joseph, but her complete lack of faith in God.
Correct, Emma was very upset after Joseph's death and she never supported Brigham Young
@@johngrant2196 Brother johngrant, neither you nor I could hold a candle to Emma Smith's wonderful faith in God or her noble discipleship. Be careful of whose name you casually slander.
A whole lot of good her breakoff sect is doing in the world. . .
*Stares directly at sun*: What sun? I don’t see no sun!
Jacob: have Jeremy Hoop on your podcast. He has some very interesting insights that you need to hear.
@@steventurner3042 jeremy, just another apostate saying the church is fallen
Great podcast… I appreciate all the work you have done in this area. I’ve never felt the church was trying to “hide” anything… they just focused on where we were today… I’m glad they were quick to publish essays
1:28:03 yeah except President Nelson is an eternal polygamist, so he does practice “the principle” on that level
Excellent interview!!!! Thanks Brian Hales! Despite the naysayers, we appreciate your work!!!!!!😊
Actually, Brother Cameron, the real "naysayers" are those who say "Nay" to Joseph Smith when he, without exception, testified he was faithful to his ONE and ONLY ONE dear wife, Emma; and "Nay" to the prophet Jacob (in CH. 2-3), when he unequivocally condemned polygamy as an abomination; and "Nay" to the Lord, whom the prophet Jacob quotes in those chapters that condemn polygamy.
I believe Joseph! One wife!
The denialist strain has spread throughout the church, mostly due to online influencers. It's very sad.
@lemjwp1756 it weird that the church is a polygamy apologist???
@@stephanielibbert1668 It has nothing to do with being an apologist for polygamy; it's a matter of not denying the actual documented history. Deniers are revisionists.
I forgive the punitive labels. Good people, with great scholarship, willing to post their content online for free, have skillfully exonerated Joseph Smith's character of the false allegations of polygamy. To say polygamy of God, is blaspheming His name as well.
Brian Hales charges a lot for his books of historical fiction. Brian and the Church historians are leaning on name calling and authority, rather than evidence.
@lemjwp1756 well, the fact that BY admits in his journals to rewriting the early history of the church is actual evidence that the church has an inaccurate narrative.
The reason for this is simple: If troo believing Mormons admit that Smith started polygamy, they'll also have to admit that he was a liar, an adulterer, and a hypocrite. These "Joseph Smith polygamy deniers" don't want to give up their adoration of Smith, so they go into a state of intellectual denial.
My own family history, including an anti Mormon book written by an ancestor because Joseph was a polygamist, has Joseph as a polygamist. My gggg aunt was one of Joseph’s wives. Honestly, I am no lover of polygamy, but the movement to make JS a non polygamist has so many implications that are not good about our churches standing as the church with priesthood authority. Our current prophet is a polygamist. I am just….I can’t believe the push to change our history.
@rebeccabaca2909, why are you not a lover of polygamy? If it is, as Brigham Young taught, the economy of heaven and necessary for exaltation and monogamy is a corrupt practice of man and the cause of fornication - why don't you love and defend God's law? This is perhaps the most remarkable part of the pro-polygamy movement. So many express disdain for what they believe is God's highest law of marriage. Do you believe it or don't you?
@@GaryLArnell you can believe something is true but not be the biggest fan of it. My wife thinks the endowment ceremony is weird and uncomfortable but she believes it to be inspired of God. Just because she has had a negative personal reaction to it doesn’t negate it’s truthfulness
@@GaryLArnell Plural marriage is a tool the Lord has used at times throughout history to establish His covenant among imperfect people in a fallen world. If everyone had kept the commandments and remained within the Patriarchal Order from the beginning, there would have never been a need. But that obviously didn't happen. For my part, I do think eternal marriage will ultimately be after the pattern of Adam and Eve, i.e. one man and one woman. But that doesn't change the facts here and now or mean there aren't exceptions in mortality.
Are you directly descended from the prophet Joseph Smith then?
@@GaryLArnellYou have beef with me Gary? Do you not believe I was Joseph Smith’s rightful successor? As I said to Almon Babbitt back in the day, I repeat to you Gary: You are shitting in my ditch, and I will lick it out and you too!”
I am truely trying to sort this out so please help me understand; just because there is more data on one side than the other doesn't necessarily mean the claim is true. Doesn't context surrounding the event and motive of the person making the record matter more? The data and the people responsible for the data need to be put on trial and cross examined before "the truth" can be known. Unfortunately the people who were actually involved are no longer with us so how can this issue ever be resolved?
I agree that just because something is recorded late doesn't necessarily make it unreliable or automatically make it a lie or an attempt to cover up or justify a sinful practice.
Also how can polygamy be scriptually be justified? What is accomplished by it ? I am not trying to be antagonistic. I am sincerely trying to sort this out.
@@StandforTruth712 absolutely. I agree. The context for D&C 132 definitely shows it to be a revelation from the 1840s and not one created by BY in the 1850s. Context is key
20:08 @@samuelmoon3051 My questions are not being made to make an argument in support of polygamy deniers. It's a sincere question I have in trying to come to the the truth. I am not ready to dismiss 132 yet.
@@StandforTruth712 what do you mean "scripturally justified"?
Why would it be necessary for anyone's exaltation.
@@StandforTruth712 I don't think it is necessary for any one person to have more than 1 wife to become exhalted. I do believe being married is required though and I have a hard time believing that the ratio of people eligible for exaltation is going to be exactly 1:1 between males and females. Resulting in the need of some level of polygamy.
Plural marriage in Church history is a such a blessing-it is a filter that apostates use to filter themselves out. Then many end up coming back. Plural marriage is also how God sent an amazing concentration of the the best souls to the earth to establish His kingdom and build Zion. To argue against it is to follow one's own agenda-not God's.
Indeed. Also, in hindsight one can see how the practice helped to keep the Church separate and distinct from apostate Christianity. Look at the state of the RLDS/Community of Christ now. They rejected the practice at the time, they've all but lost their identity, and are now essentially a strange liberal Christian sect with no real ties to the Restoration.
It just seems so silly to me when you take a step back and realize your church is the only church that says it was ever God's agenda
My wife can no longer bear children. I would like to have many more. Why am I being denied the ability to have more biological children?
You do understand that in terms of population our church is still on the small side. We are told the church is still being restored, and many additional truths will come forth. So I don't understand your argument on why God started polygamy, but then stopped it. The manifesto seems to indicate it was stopped because of pressure from the United States government - those pressures don't seem to exist anymore.
@@raddiemutto7934 Nothing says bogus Christian theology like buckling to government pressure
Imagine if Jesus and the apostles abandoned their ministry because the government threatened them lol
@@HeIljumper I wouldn't say early Church leaders abandoned their ministry. In general after their appeals to the government failed, they fought back pretty hard, even to the point of walking thousands of miles, and many dying to escape the oppression. They did leave the United States to try and keep their religion pure.
Don't judge other men too harshly - we are indeed imperfect. There is no denying early LDS leaders were true believers.
Michelle Stone's theories all emanates from feelings and "ick factor" of the subject looking back through our modern lenses.
This is inaccurate as it ignores all the hard work and research Michelle put into trying to prove that polygamy was ordained of God.
The ick factor is huge, I'll give you that.
But you obviously haven't taken the time to examine Michelle's work.
@@davidmaughan4472 no, Michelle _used_ to think polygamy was of God, and put a lot of work into showing it by the scriptures, but the deeper she looked, the clearer it became that polygamy is not of God
Now that you all have invested the time into this video, you owe it to yourselves to watch Karen Hyatts video title Woe Unto You, Scribes. I will challenge you to watch that video and not at least admit that some aspects of our polygamy narrative need to be revisited.
It’s sooooooo good!
Yessss!
Thank you so much - that is exactly the point of the video: to show that there is another side of the story that has been hidden from us for far too long. Not to argue, just to present information.
This is incredible. If I've got this straight...
NOT OK: "Joseph couldn't have been a polygamist, because it would call his prophetic calling into question."
TOTALLY OK: "Joseph couldn't have been a monogamist, because it would call Brigham's prophetic calling into question."
Incredible.
The craziest part is that just about every "denier" I personally know believed for years or decades that Joseph WAS a polygamist, and they put that awful thing on the altar, trusting in God that this "doctrine" would make sense at some point. They've only changed their perspective because of increased understanding, because of the documents and the scriptures - not because it suddenly became unpalatable. That should not need to be defended.
Let's not let the fear of "ramifications" cloud our ability to entertain alternate possibilities.
And, for heaven's sake, let's allow people to express their belief that Joseph was telling the truth without resorting to accusations of motivated reasoning.
Spot on!
Love this.
This is why it is so important to get your own witness of the book of mormon and Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost! This is a non issue for me. I asked God about polygamy, my answer was that it has to do with spiritual lineage. Joseph Smith is the Prophet of this dispensation, and those same keys are held by President Nelson today.
Thus far, there have been 17 prophets of this dispensation. The problem with the revisionists is they think Joseph was the only one.
@@jaredshipp9207 Well, I sustain all of them, and I think if they get some things wrong, they will be judged for it. I would say most people looking for things that are wrong in the church are suffering something out of their control and looking for relief in a way out. That's my opinion.
You said it very well. The Holy Ghost reveals the truth of this and all things. It's not complicated. I also asked God and He answered very clearly. But you can't convince those who won't be convinced.
I don't understand your comment about spiritual lineage. How are you defining spiritual lineage, and how does that relate to polygamy? God at different times has spoken peace to my soul about polygamy also, but it never included any specifics.
@@raddiemutto7934 maybe you should ask for specifics...? I understand it perfectly. He showed me in a dream and Im not going to try and type it here. I do believe some people do it wrong and God doesn't sanction it. But if God blesses the marriages it was pre ordained. Hope that helps...?
The term "Celestial Plural Marriage" is not found anywhere in any canonized version of LDS scripture. So this argument that Brian uses that Joseph didn't specifically deny celestial plural marriage is completely ridiculous. It was never called that during Joseph's time. So of course he didn't use that language. What a silly silly argument.
I am in the boat of still figuring out what is true and what is not. I can see both sides. I noticed this as well and I agree it is a poor argument. 132 calls it multiple wives and concubines being justified, never celestial plural marriage...
I think if it all came from Brigham, he could've easily been deceived by false spirits and his own pride and can still hold the office as president of the church. Many are called but few are chosen. Prophets still have agency and can still be deceived just like the rest of us. But as we can see, the truth of God shall go forth whether Satan likes it or not.
132
If you want to read my three volumes: Joseph Smith's Polygamy: History and Theology, you'll find all the terms used to refer to the plural sealings. Whatever term you choose, JS was never accused of that behavior specifically. We must rise above our presentism and keep things in historical context, or else we will be mislead.
@@brianhales8971 Where did that term "celestial plural marriage" come from, other than your books. Sincere question. I have never heard anyone else refer to it as that.
@@andrewdurfee3896 nope.
Jacob- love your passion, but make sure to allow your slower-speaking than you guests to finish their sentences 😉
I sent this to a friend of mine who is questioning this topic and I worry that your energetic enthusiasm may turn her off.
I’m hoping that she can just hear the facts and the Holy Ghost ❤️
If she wants the facts, Brian is not the place to get them.
Send her to Karen Hyatt's synopsis "Wo unto ye scribes"
And send her to Jacob 2-3. Yes, it is all one sermon and there is NO polygamy "loophole."
Then send her to D&C 132 and ask her if she wants to be one of many wives or a concubine in the caste system for women in Heaven.
Ask her why 132 claims Christ's atonement is not sufficient for our sins? See if she can count how many false doctrines exist in D&C 132. Hint, it is a LOT more than 10.... It is a FAKE. Joseph is innocent of the allegations of polygamy now as he was in his lifetime.
Currently polygamy is legal in 58 of 200 sovereign states, mostly Muslim. A religion that is needed to be preached to the world would be expected to have some doctrine of the practice? Additionally between 1845 and 1890 when the Church practiced polygamy there were 100's wars going on in the world in just one area, California Indian Wars, between 1,680 and 3,741 were killed by the US Army, Polygamy discussions are likely a distraction to other genocides and wars. I like to also speculate that in the 1840's the future US civil war in 1860's was going to kill about 700,000. Wars in the past 1000 years have killed 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 most, likely men. Polygamy must have given opportunity for some of the few thousand women to have a family that would otherwise not. I am a decedent of a hat maker and his plural second wife. This second wife's first husband died from exposure on his trek to Salt Lake in 1849 with his wife and 7 kids. In 1850 they married. My ancestor and his second wife then had another 7 kids in the Mountain West in company with the Prophet Brigham Young.
@@halsmith7642 it’s a myth that there were more women than men according to census records, many men didn’t have wives bc of polygamy, that’s also how it drove the marriage age down. It took all the women for the leaders of the church and many women didn’t get to have families bc of polygamy. BY had all his children with 16 of his wives, the others were neglected
@@Hmcc0712 My particular ancestor had 7 kids by his second widowed wife who already had 7 kids (6 living) by her first husband, who she was sealed to in marriage at Nauvoo.
That has nothing to do with the question, is polygamy of God. Jacob tells us it is man's tendency to turn to persecution of the poor, seeking riches above God, pride, and seeking to have more wives or concubines.
Your facts prove his point.
I had two polygamous ancestors and one who declined. What does that have to do with whether polygamy is of God. My grandmother's first husband died and she remarried. What about her?
That does not change the fact that The Book of Mormon fiercely condemns polygamy as a "crime," "abomination," and a "whoredom."
Thanks for the info it's great. On another note not on the topic of Joseph's polygamy. I just wouldn't say it's not possible to have a conspiracy in general, especially when our government has had many successful "conspiracies" or has been successful in keeping very large programs secret for many years. But the government is very organized so I don't think anyone can do it like then. Otherwise great content
There was a conspiracy. Those who affirm Joseph was innocent of the allegations of polygamy simply claim it was primarily Brigham Young and a few others. The rest were victims of it through the years, including today.
On the other hand, Brian is suggesting a vast conspiracy from 1831-1844 of Joseph and his "insiders" forgetting just how many people beyond the 35 alleged wives of Joseph, families, and insiders and their wives, and those who declined to participate.
Its a hard doctrine.. therefore, it’s false.. Brigham was a bad dude.. so that means the church is bad and fallen. Theres the summary of the deniers
Or in some magical way, despite Brigham and others practicing what they see as adultery for decades, they somehow retained the priesthood keys.
@@jaredshipp9207 can a bad tree produce good fruit? When the bulk of their fruit is committing adultery.? something so heinous as adultery?
3:13 I think a lot of people have trouble continuing to sacrifice everything for a church that was founded by a man that was less than honest with his wife. It’s a hard thing to stomach And so most just continue on avoiding the topic and ignoring the whole principal. The way I grew up. It wasn’t about whether Joseph did it or not. It was about whether it was right or wrong. My logic was, Joseph Smith had direct contact with God himself and God commanded Joseph to live polygamy thus polygamy of God. The one thing I never questioned was Gods commands. His ways are higher than our ways and it’s silly to think we can know the mind of God.
It’s interesting now that so many things I found problematic or concerning such as blacks being kept from holding any priesthood power and access to eternal covenant’s in the temple. ultimately just had to trust that it was commanded of God because he is in direct contact with His prophets but now it seems that God is no longer the one who commanded it of his prophet but rather just followed societal norms of their time.?.?. 🤨 Would the God of this world really not be able to command whatever he saw fit and right regardless of the societal norms? I mean, I don’t think polygamy was that social norm yet he commanded it.?.?
I’m just getting started on this podcast and I’m hoping to get an answer for whether or not you now consider the practice of polygamy to have been another command created by fallible men, or was it of God?
@@Allthoseopposedthis veers away from polygamy but there an amazing podcast by Bruce porter called cain Abel and the priesthood. I wish this was known far and wide. But it completely, in my mind, explains the priesthood issue. It was not society norms as many believe it was. It was the lords timing and things had to be fulfilled before that could happen. It totally made sense and if others knew it they would understand it as well. A very good listen…
@@Allthoseopposed blacks not receiving the priesthood was a policy. David o mckay and others said so. Plural marriage is doctrine.. hard to compare but i ser your point about fallibility
God never commands polygamy either in the Old Testament or Christian churches.
Why do you think the ancients practiced it?
@@raddiemutto7934 For some other reason . . .
@@raddiemutto7934 Abram and Sarai, lack of faith. Jacob tricked into it by his father in law, then his wives started competing for children and his affection. It breaks womens hearts.
We don't follow what Paul did as Saul
We should not follow what Abraham did as Abram or Israel did as Jacob
It’s amazing how many members reject the churches acknowledgement of Joseph Smiths polygamy.
Not if you keep up with the scholarship.
When Christ came, he witnessed against the church. Which prophet did not do what Christ did? Maybe King Benjamin who is the bipolar opposite of our leaders today. Christ, like Joseph, came among friends. What did the Smiths get for their troubles? People like you, Hales, and Hanson, "Thanks for the Book of Mormon--and oh by the way, you are the pathway and excuse for whoredoms and we ignore all your teachings and eisegeses. Thanks Joe."
You people make me sick. #whoredomedenier #onewife
Ya, we should live by Brigham Young’s words in *Journal of Discourses*, volume 3, page 266:
"This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and whoredom throughout the Christian world. Do away with that, and institute the law of God in its place, and you will redeem a people from the evils and sins of this generation."
In this statement, Brigham Young argued that monogamy, as practiced in Christian societies, contributed to social issues like prostitution. He believed that the "law of God," which he understood to include plural marriage, would alleviate these problems by providing an alternative structure for relationships and family life. I guess the only way for my husband to control himself is by getting more wives to “legally” boink. 🧐
Something like this could have been said 50 years ago, "It's amazing how many members reject the churches acknowledgement that blacks shouldn't hold the priesthood."
It's the only way they feel they can maintain their faith in Joseph being a prophet.
Always question the motive of people, meaning follow the money. Who benefits from keeping the established narrative going? Brian, do you benefit monetarily from the books and papers you write, if so, I don't count you as a neutral source of information.
I just want to be sure I'm following the careful, balanced reasoning of those who condemn anyone who simply believes Joseph Smith spoke the truth when he ALWAYS attested that he NEVER preached or practiced polygamy (or whatever you call it this week).
See if I've got this straight, will you Brothers Brian and Jared . . .?
* THE LORD GAVE Joseph Smith a direct and essential commandment for human salvation (marry your babysitters ...) and then ALSO TOLD JOSEPH TO ....
* .... PRACTICE this anti-Book of Mormon commandment in order to have TONS of CHILDREN beyond your relationship with Emma, without ever producing ANY other children--except for those with your wife, Emma,
* .... MAKE SURE there is NOT A SINGLE contemporary JOURNAL ENTRY about ANY of those earth-shattering unions of the Lord's prophet with any of those dozens of polygamous wives--even though they each kept regular journal entries of all important events in their lives (though DECADES LATER, other leaders will round them up & "jog their memories" & have them EACH SIGN BOILERPLATE AFFIDAVITS, which the unbiased judge at the "Temple Lot Trial" will aggressively dismiss as obviously coerced FRAUDS in their failed attempt to provide the necessary legal evidence that you, Joseph Smith, ever practiced polygamy),
* .... ALWAYS DENY and LIE about the new commandment of institutional adultery (whoops, "polygamy"), & loudly condemn polygamy (whoops, "institutional adultery") at every opportunity,
* .... And use SECRET CODE (which only Brian Hales or Jacob Hanson will be able to de-cipher for the rest of us--in the 21st century), so that these obvious explicit denials magically become obvious affirmations. (E.g., when you say "I have only one wife" we in the 21st Century (with needed help from Brian and Jacob) will know that you're clearly saying: "I only have one wife AT A TIME--while I am sitting in my cabin with that one wife drinking cider in front of the fireplace." See how easily denials become affirmations? ....
* .... (because, you know, the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, SAVE HE SHALL prepare a way for them that they may then immediately DENY THAT COMMANDMENT & repeatedly HIDE THE FACT that they ever received it) ....
* .... (and because, you know, "FEAR is the greatest manifestation of Faith" (oops .... more code--sorry, I'll help you with that one later ....)
* ..... (and because, you know, the same guy who had the . . . courage to walk out of the Sacred Grove & announce to the entire world they must repent & follow every guideline given to him directly by God himself, word-for-word, to have any hope of salvation from hell; this same pretty tough guy by most standards, then quakes, trembles, & cowers at the prospect of some Missouri or Illinois hick walking past him & accusing him of keeping some commandment given to him directly by the Lord--with a Samurai angel making sure he is on the team)
* .... AND THEREFORE ALWAYS SNEAK AROUND in the dark--behind your wife's back--when adding to your teenage (& other men's wives) harem--as commanded by the Lord,
* .... AND EXCOMMUNICATE ANY OTHERS you know of who preach or practice that same polygamy
* .... AND THEN PREACH monogamy (again, in CODE: don't worry, Brian and Jacob will decipher it for the rubes later) and include additional verses & sections to the DC that clearly certify that the Lord's law of marriage is strictly MONOGAMOUS (whoa, that one may be tough--even for advanced de-coders like Brian and Jacob; but we know they'll figure something out, don't we?)
* .... AND THEN ARRANGE FOR FUTURE LEADERS (long after your death) to ERASE those monogamous verses & sections (DC 101, et al),
* .... AND HAVE THOSE FUTURE LEADERS REPLACE those clear monogamy verses & sections with the most ham-fisted & carnally-toned words of DC 132, which section suddenly CELEBRATES & COMMANDS having plenty of wives & concubines in order to satisfy any of those ole natural "desires" that may arise . . . which "desires" & accumulation of desire-quenching wives now become the top priority in a (male) saint's life,
* .... AND HAVE THEM INCLUDE blatantly FALSE DOCTRINES throughout that newly-forged (I mean placed ... or ... added ... or displayed ... or ...) DC section,
* .... And have them state in the first few verses of DC 132 that its purpose is to reveal some BRAND NEW, totally SURPRISING commandment .... which they will ALREADY be practicing before ever reading about it ....
* .... AND have them ADDRESS your beloved WIFE and faithful matriarch of the Restoration, EMMA, in the threatening, debasing, HATEFUL TONES of that document,
* .... AND HAVE THOSE SAME LEADERS declare the earthly practice of polygamy "ESSENTIAL for exaltation" & "MORE IMPORTANT than BAPTISM" and declare Monogamy the enemy of morality & source of prostitution & disease,
* .... AND THEREBY, with all this ammo now available, PROVIDE anti-LDS GROUPS their GREATEST WEAPON (targeting potential investigators & vulnerable members) against reading the Book of Mormon, gaining a testimony of its truth, & joining the Lord's true and restored kingdom they could ever hope for in their deepest anti-LDS dreams . . .
Am I following you, Brian and Jacob, and other folks, or did I miss a few direct commandments of the Lord to his founding prophet of the Restoration ... ?
And you're mad at "Joseph Smith Affirmers") for doubting such "light-and-truth-filled" doctrines & related activities?
Hmmm, I think, instead of all that, I'll just go ahead & believe and sustain the Lord's founding prophet of the Restoration, the Prophet Joseph Smith, when he ALWAYS exclaimed that he condemned polygamy & was a loving and faithful husband to his dear wife, Emma, who also clearly denied that her husband ever polygamized.
Sure hope my decision doesn't get y'all too riled . . .
Give it a try, yourself, my friend, & see how the Lord feels about that decision. Okay? .
Are you ok? Breathe. Just breathe.
Great comment!
AMEN!
@@establishingzion688 You kidding me? That was a blast. But thanks for asking.
These things almost write themselves: Showing the Brighamites' transparent and perverse efforts to justify and then beatify people who deliberately betrayed the Lord and His founding prophet--to deviously install what the Lord always calls "an abomination" and "whoredom," which He tells us, always "leads away captive" and "breaks the tender hearts" of His daughters, as He, their Heavenly Father "see[s] their sorrow and hears their mourning" because of the "filthiness" of the fathers and the "fornication and lasciviousness" of the husbands.
Wow.
* Do you think Jacob and the Lord are overdoing it when they so forcefully call upon husbands anywhere "in all the lands of my people" to repent of the "wickedness and abomination" that always accompanies polygamy?
* Do you think Heavenly Father (or Jacob) is being too emotional in this diatribe against polygamy, as He watches the whoredoms of the husbands break the tender hearts of His eternal daughters?
* Would you tell Jacob and the Lord to "relax and take a deep breath" ?
BTW: Did you enjoy the video? Your kind of thing? I'm guessing: "Yessiree!"
@@jonterry9843 Again, my friend, breathe.
Take a deep breath.
Calm yourself down.
You'll give yourself ulcers.
This has been a great episode! I have listened to Michelle Stone and felt no spirit and although she seems to be “well researched”, she never has shown this kind of contemporaneous and original source documentation which I believe is a major problem. I have always believed that JS introduced polygamy and that he was sealed to many women. I have not however felt that he “lived polygamy” as we would believe it however now I am open to that. In regards to Brigham Young and other church leaders who practiced polygamy I have always believed that they were chosen, key holding prophets, seers and revelators and that polygamy was commanded of God. I love what President Nelson said in regards to polygamy. Yes we did, no we don’t and both periods were directed by Devine revelation from God! To me that is the mic drop!
Wait, did you feel the spirit in this episode? I actually have felt the spirit many times in Michelle’s episodes, and the stuff about Joseph being a polygamist gives me an immediate stupor of thought. It is like throwing my conscience in a blender. God is not the author of confusion. God doesn’t give carefully worded denials. When I finally asked God if polygamy was really from him, the spirit immediately came with the words, “No. this is not who I am. That is not my character.” I had been praying about this for years with utter emptiness and darkness, but my question was wrong. I kept asking why He did it. It never occurred to me that I should be asking “if.” My witness came before I had ever heard the case that Joseph was not a polygamist.
@ yes I did! My problem is that the Lord has laid out his pattern for revealing truth and that pattern is through His servants the Prophets. It is not the Lord’s pattern to tell people to “reveal His real truth” by making a RUclips channel dedicated to telling the world that His chosen prophets aka Young, Woodruff, Snow and Taylor were fallen prophets and committed egregious sins yet still retained keys that are on the earth today. That is not the pattern. Now if our prophet today came out and said that MS is right and polygamy was all wrong then I follow the Lords pattern for revealed truth! However President Nelson said “yes we did, no we don’t now” in regards to polygamy and I am good with that. I am glad that you received your spiritual confirmation. That is how personal revelation is given! However that was revelation for you not for the Lord’s church.
@@teresawoodside4051 There are true prophets and false prophets. The scriptures tell us this many times. We must be able to discern truth. The infallibility of the prophet is a cultish, false notion. Only Jesus Christ is infallible.
@ I don’t disagree!
It's called the doctrine of many wives and concubines.
My number one proof is the witness of the Holy Ghost that plural marriage was the will of God, it was given to Joseph, and that he did indeed practice it.
The Lord of Hosts (God of Isreal) and God Almighty say that "many wives and concubines" is a WHOREDOM. There is NO loophole in Jacobs Sermon Chapters 2-3.
Section 132 of D&C if FILLED with false doctrines. Basically it removes Jesus Christ as our Chief CornerStone.
So maybe that is not who you are hearing from...
ruclips.net/video/CeUOg88meFc/видео.html
That's not the Holy Ghost. That is your weird desires
Why would the Holy Ghost bear witness of something the Lord calls a WHOREDOM? Jacob 2-3. No polygamy loophole. 132 is a FAKE Salamander Letter. We have no original, no copy signed by Joseph Smith, does not appear until 8 years AFTER the martyrdom. It contains doctrines that deny the power of Christ unto salvation, and takes away women's agency. It is not an "offering" if your husband can bring in another wife or wives without your permission. The God as described in the fake "principle and doctrine" of "many wives and concubines" is NOT the loving God, who hears the cries of women and the suffering--as Jacob 2-3 describes.
@@Christina-e6dthat is your opinion* do you think the same about the 29 figures in the Bible with multiple wives?
When someone says they only have one wife, son, one daughter, one house, one car, one dog, one RV, one trampoline, etc., we now know they are lying. They secretly have more! 🧐
That’s Brian’s logic on why JS’ final address states that he only has one wife. And they think deniers are out of their minds. Ugh.
Yes!! Talk about cherry picking and twisting words. I’m sure historians are scrambling to cover their tracks now that the common man now has access to the Joseph smith papers, journals, and other documents now online. Historians can no longer control the narrative and are digging deep to back up their ridiculous claims.
You can't hear the truth. The law of chastity must be lived during mortality perfectly, that is, we must learn to not even lust after a person who is not your spouse, to earn a Celestial body, which is an immortal body that has sexual organs, like Adam and Eve had.
For there not to be polygamy in heaven, the exact same number of men and women would have to live the law of chastity.
Jacob said no polygamy, because God hears the cries of His fair daughters. God also hears the cries of His righteous daughters that have no prospect of eternal marriage, like Leeh, so He closed Rachel's womb, so Jacob would favor Leah , even thou
@@GarySaint-xm6tr can you share with me where it says in scripture there will be more women than men in heaven? What if it ends up being more men than women? Are men okay with sharing their wife? The imbalance is a man made concept and undermines the concept that God is in charge and is perfect.
@@monicafoster5839
Am I okay with there being more men than women that live the law of chastity in mortality, and thereby earn a Celestial body. First. That is a personal question. It has nothing to do with logic. There are plenty of surveys that show more women than men keep the law of chastity. Life experience shows more women than men keep the law of chastity. Look at the restaurants, twin peaks, hooters, etc. there are not very many restaurants like that for women, because the market isn't there. That's just the beginning..
President Eyeing recently said there will be more women than men at the conference at Adam Ondi Aman.
President Hinkley said that violations of the law of chastity are more of a male problem, but the women are catching up.
As far as the emotional question. First. I want to repent sufficientty to earn a Celestial body. Second. If I do, I do not have low self esteem, so no, I would not have a problem with being a multiple husband.
.
@@GarySaint-xm6tr interesting that you use the law of chastity as the only thing that determines earning a celestial body. Your arguments continue to amaze me. And not in a good way. 😂
I'm not a polygamy denier, but i do enjoy asking some tough questions.
What if Abinadi's mission was successful? What if King Noah along with all his high priests had decided to repent? What would that church look like after a hundred and 150 years?
Read Words of Mormon in The Book of Mormon. Start with verse 14. Super interesting parallel to your thought. Leads in to Mosiah. Turns out great for The Church.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c thanks for the reply. I think I agree with this, and this goes to show that succession of authority is not broken by men who sinned gravely, and or taught whoredoms to the people.
@@SacredGnosis Even when trees in the Allegory of the Olive Tree are not bearing much or any good fruit, they serve an important function to keep the roots alive. This is one reason it is good to stay faithful in times of uncertainty as we watch and try to understand how the Lord works.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c Ill have to go read Jacob 5 again. Thanks!
@@SacredGnosis Read Jacob 4-6 actually. I had not seen the newer Church video on the allegory. But the lesson manual writers make it so Church centric vs God centric. Who can be the Lord of the Vineyard but God the Father? He is the one whose plan it is. He is the one whereby Christ says he does not know where the Father hath lead Israel (the tame branches,) It is God the Father whose glory it is. Jacob tells us in 4 that Christ is presenting the fruits unto His Father.
Satans plan was to take the glory and the Fruit! We should not take the Father out so make room for the Church in place of Christ!
Nevertheless, the Allegory tells us God will straighten it out through the gathering.
I came from polygamous heritage and for the most of my life believed the LDS church narrative, until I did more thorough search and pondering of the subject. Brian seems to be into labels, but rather than the label imposed by him and others as "polygamy deniers"; I'd rather, if a label must be used, be known as a "truth seeker." Another fallacy that Brian espouses is labeling those who study the issues on their own as "amateur historians", as if we can't think for ourselves and must rely on "professionals" to spoon feed us their findings. He is by profession an anesthesiologist and had much of his research done by someone who left the church. What special qualifications does he have to make claim as an historian?
That being said, polygamy and Joseph Smith's involvement is a controversial and contentious topic for a lot of people, and due to apostates and polygamy-believing members, like Brian, who both claim Joseph was a liar in public and unfaithful to Emma in private, it has been the source of many members and investigators losing faith in the church.
It seems pointless to join the diatribe between individuals who contradict each other's historical research, so I'll use the scriptures and specifically the source material of D&C 132 to point out issues with polygamy. Section 132 is the ONLY place in the scriptures that states plural marriage comes from the Lord; there are no other scriptures in the standard works that explicitly state that the Lord commanded righteous men to take another wife; although there have been times when polygamy was allowed.
Joseph was a student of the Bible and I believe he understood it better than almost anyone. He even did a massive translation of it, known as the JST, and he had the spirit of revelation, so it’s more likely that other men not as acquainted with the scriptures would have made the errors that are apparent in the very first verse and other verses in D&C 132:
1) There is no scriptural support for Isaac marrying more than to one wife.
2) Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman while living in Egypt (Numbers 12:1) and after he fled Egypt he married Zipporah and no one else is mentioned in the scriptures. In another book, I read that the Ethiopian marriage was part of a political alliance between the two countries. What happened to the marriage after he fled is unknown. The Lord did not condemn Moses, and in fact when Aaron and Miriam ridiculed Moses for the marriage, the Lord declared Moses as “faithful in all mine house,” and “the anger of the Lord was kindled against them.” It is false when in 132:38 it mentions that Moses, along with David and Solomon “received many wives and concubines.
3) David was NOT justified in all his marriages. Some were permitted, and many of his marriages were done as part of political alliances. In D&C 132:39 it only mentions Uriah’s wife Bathsheba as the only wife where David committed sin. However, in JST 1 Kings 11:6 it states in reference to the many wives David and Solomon had and how it led to their downfall: “And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father, and went not fully after the Lord.”
4) Solomon was also NOT justified in all 700 wives and 300 concubines who some eventually “turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, and it became as the heart of David his father.” It also says that because Solomon did not keep God’s covenants and statutes, that God would rend the kingdom during the reign of Solomon’s son. (JST 1Kings 11: 3-4, 9-12)
5) Again in verse 38 it also says that “many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time” received “many wives and concubines,” “…and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.” This is another blatantly false statement that cannot be backed up with scriptures. I did a search to find all the polygamous marriages in the Old Testament, and besides Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, it only mentions five other men who had more than one living wife: (1) Esau - Genesis 26:34; 2); Gideon - Judges 8:30; (3) Elkanah the father of Samuel - 1 Samuel 1:2; (4) Rehoboam, Solomon’s son - 2 Chronicles 11:21; (5) King Abijah - 2 Chronicles 13:21. There were none in the New Testament, and the mention in any of the other standard works of multiple marriages are of men who were unrighteous and these polygamous practices were often associated with societal and spiritual decline. (King Noah and his wicked priests - Mosiah 11; Riplakish - Ether 10:5; Lamech, a descendant of Cain, Adah - Moses 5:44).
As I have studied section 132, it is apparent that all of it was NOT consistent with other revelations given to Joseph; however, I’m not discounting that some of it may have been a revelation from him. Having the document conveniently locked in Brigham's desk draw and not sharing it with members until 1852 would have given ample time to make changes or additions. Much of it does not match the other revelations of Joseph Smith, indicating that parts were added to it by others. For example, there are 12 verses that "damn, destroy, or curse" people and 8 of them invoke the name of God (vs. 4, 6, 14, 26, 27, 41, 46, 52, 54, 57, 63 & 64). In a writing analysis that was conducted, this is more consistent with Brigham's writing and speaking style.
Lastly, if the principle of celestial marriage (known as plural marriage in the eternities prior to the manifesto) is essential to exaltation, why is there no mention of it in any other scriptures besides D&C 132? Why did the Savior not speak of it in the Book of Mormon while he was teaching the people in the Americas? And, even though Brigham made it a part of the temple endowment during his tenure, why is there nothing mentioned about plural marriage being essential to exaltation in the modern-day temple endowment?
So Brigham is a scammer, and a fallen prophet. As was john Taylor, woodruff, snow.. joseph f.. why are you staying in such a horrible church? I guess president nelson is bad too for being sealed to wendy? Just admit what you really mean.. the church is fallen
In D&C 132, while we refer to it as the doctrine of polygamy, it is actually referred to as the doctrine of many wives and concubines. So we the members of the LDS Church, attribute to Jesus Christ a doctrine of concubines. That should immediately be your first red flag. But I agree, it appears that whoever wrote section 132 did not have a great understanding of the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon. Did the Lord put the church under condemnation for not using the Book of Mormon? Imagine if the early saints had a better understanding of the Book of Mormon. Would polygamy have ever been introduced? In addition, you will have a difficult time finding any biblical scholars who will state that God commanded polygamy. There is a consensus that God did not command polygamy. It was a cultural practice, but our Book of Mormon makes it clear that polygamy was the exact reason that God commanded Lehi to leave Jerusalem and raise up a righteous generation (seed) away from the polygamist, otherwise they would hearken unto those things or in other words become polygamist themselves.
So this happened and we have to deal with it now. So a lot of times people want to say "oh well Brigham Young must have been a false prophet and so were all the others." If that's your conclusion that's fine but it's clear that maybe you haven't read the scriptures well enough. It is clear that our church has introduced many tares in addition to polygamy that have since been weeded out. The Lord said this would happen in doctrine and covenants section 86. For the most part polygamy has been weeded out but still has a little ways to go.
So how does this actually happen though? Well Jacob comes in and saves the day again. Jacob 4: 14-18 makes it clear that sometimes God gives in to the desires of men's hearts. And Jacob makes it clear when he says God does this so that they may stumble. So that they may realize that it's only upon the foundation of Jesus Christ can they build. So how do we get back then to make Jesus Christ the foundation? Well Jacob answers that in chapter 5.
A lot of people have an issue with some of the things that President Nelson is doing. I personally believe they are things that are needed. President Nelson calls it a continuing restoration. Perhaps that's a good way to put it or another way to put it is a continuing correction. While the early saints did some great and marvelous things they also introduced some bad fruit doctrines and attributed those doctrines to Jesus Christ. I think president Nelson is trying to get us back on the sure foundation of Jesus Christ. While we have always sort of been there, there is still a lot of bad fruit that needs to be cut off.
@@ridersofthepurplesage so well said! Thank you!
TheyWereInOne thank you for sharing!
Polygamy makes people uncomfortable especially women.
That is an understatement.... Because it is not of God.
The text in the thumbnail should be “So Much (crappy) Evidence”
@brianhales8971 I had a question about Joseph Smith’s remarks that you discuss at 0:25:00. Do you know what elicited this response from him? When I looked up the source (history of the church vol 6) it states that it is his “testimony against the dissenters at Nauvoo.” But that’s all the info it gives as far as context. In a comment you state that “No one was accusing Joseph Smith of practicing celestial plural marriage.” So I’m trying to find out more about what dissenters were specifically accusing him of. Were they simply trying to accuse him of practicing plural marriage in general? Regardless of whether it was celestial?
1:18:00 wow quite the leap in logic there-the RLDS church wanting to make the debate about doctrine is now suddenly equivalent to them acknowledging that JS was a polygamist?
word!
Question 1 - Joseph denied having more than one wife. He stated he only had one (1844)!!!! If he had more than one he lied, period.
Question 2- This shouldn't even be a question as this group of people either lied before Joseph's death when they signed their names to documents polygamy wasn't practiced or they lied after Joseph's death when they claimed he authored it. Either way they conspired and lied.
But to answer your question - It started with rumors as polygamy was the big scare of the day and we have documentation of when the 12 went to Saco Maine and preached to the Cochranites and the people feared they associated with them. Brigham not Joseph went to Maine and interacted with them. We have documentation of people questioning if mormons were involved in polygamy and we have Joseph's denial. Not only do we have his denial but we have him asserting and inserting into D&C the only acceptable form of marriage in the church which was monogamy. Then we have John C. Bennett who was angry with Joseph for outing him for the lying adultering, spiritual wifery scoundrel he was and who after being exposed did everything he could to project his own actions onto Joseph in an attempt to discredit him and ruin his reputation. Then you have other enemies of the Joseph who again wanted to discredit him and ruin him people like Bennetts cohort Chauncey Higbee who joined with the Laws and Fosters and who we have record conspired to kill Joseph. Then you have Brigham and Heber, Richards and Clayton who all were across the ocean together serving missions and it was on that mission that Brigham stated he received a vision/revelation whatever regarding polygamy, before Joseph allegedly introduced him to it. It was on that mission that we have records of inappropriate behavior between some of these men and women. These missionaries encouraged women to leave their husbands and even children to go be with the saints in America which put them in a dire situation and susceptible to seduction. Not only did Joseph put a stop to that but he also instituted the RS in part to care for these women to protect them from the wolves (men) that would prey on them. We have records that are not disputed by anyone of Brigham and Heber taking multiple wives while Joseph was preaching against it and excommunicating those found practicing it. Then you have a group of Mormons who trek across the west and are in the middle of no where, completely reliant upon their leaders for survival. Five years later they are presented with a polygamy revelation and told it came from Joseph. Yet oddly no woman at that time speaks up to claim that she had been special enough to be chosen to be the prophets plural wife. 17 years later after many had entered into polygamy and have families Joseph's sons arrive in Utah and tell everyone that their father had nothing to do with polygamy. Their cousin goes looking for evidence to the contrary and (not surprisingly) can't find any "Joseph F. Smith wrote to Orson Pratt on July 19, 1875, and stated that, as he began to put together evidence of Joseph’s involvement in polygamy and its historical unfolding, he “was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the subject” (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy 1:9; italics added). Suddenly Brigham and Heber's wives come forward and claim that they had been married to Joseph.
So you have the people who hated Joseph and wanted to destroy him. You have the people who believed what they were told, and you have people whose families and way of life were dependent on people believing the lie. They believed in the mantra lying for the Lord. Their stories are full of holes and lack credibility. Saying a polygamist community wouldn't ban together and lie is just ridiculous in light of groups like Warren Jeffs and Kingstons. And Joseph's enemies aren't going to change their tune as they would lose credibility. Others involved we have records of them being on the payroll so to speak. You have a group of people all with strong motives to lie.
Question 3- Absolutely, they taught lying for the Lord for a reason and we know for a fact they lied. We have Brighams ludicrous lies about Emma poisoning Joseph, we have documentation of Woodruff's lies about members no longer practicing polygamy, among other proven lies. Amazing that Brian thinks the church can stand with Joseph being a liar but not with Brigham, Taylor, Woodruff and Snow being liars.
I believe Joseph, the prophet of the restoration; Emma; and Hyrum! One wife!! Read the original D&C 101. JS published it six times in nine years: 1835 doctrine and covenants, Messenger and advocate August 1835, September 1, 1842 times in seasons, October 1, 1842 times and seasons, 1844 January millennial star. 1844 doctrine and covenants. Officially published at four of those times himself, and it was published by two other editors of the newspapers.
Joseph and Hyrum denied the charges by Austin Cowell’s William and Jane law saying that they had received and read a revelation on polygamy. They denied it June 8 and 10th of 1844 before the Nauvoo city council. That denial was published in the papers. They were killed later that month.
i have good reason to beleive the 1 wife thing unless a death occur is wrong. that was a social thing ,a tradition from the roman catho and protestants. ..just like the black ban on priesthood. if it be from the lord he would not have commanded me to remarry to a specific sister after being divorced of a sealed wife. arguments presented on both side are confusing . only personal revelation will settle the argument. and then what? we arent expected to be poly again. !
This only shows how deceitful Joseph was and that he lied often since as Brian and Jacob explain, he did practice some form of polygamy.
@@jonny6man Brian is a story teller.... Sorry but his facts don't stand up to scrutiny.
@BridgeBuilder-x4c What facts that he mentioned don't stand up to scrutiny? You don't seem to be thinking about the situation with a critical mind. There are facts that are evidence for polygamy like Brian mentioned, and there are some that are evidence for the opposite, such as the many denials by JS.
@@jonny6man None of Brian's allegations stand up to scrutiny. He is a storyteller. And sad to say, reminds of a kid who can taunt other kids, knowing that big brother will back him up. I had no idea just how unfounded allegations of Joseph's polygamy are, until I started watching Brian defend himself--and started listening to those defending Joseph.
Then as a cross check, I turned to scripture. And it is shocking to see just what a manipulation the lesson manuals create--to convince people of a polygamy loophole in Jacob 2-3. Worse yet is how the Church pretends D&C 132 makes any sense doctrinally. If the Church has to hide, that at one time the D&C contained a document condemning polygamy as a crime, and they had to hide that Brigham brought it out of his desk 8 years after the martyrdom, it tells me that truth is not a priority regarding this matter.
Hey Jacob, idk if you’ve seen but Capturing Christianity has been going on a rampage the past couple weeks about polygamy and parallels between JS and Mohammed. Seems like he thinks he’s “discovered” a bunch of salacious facts we’ve been aware of for decades. None of it is really novel, but he has a big platform, and I think it would be helpful for people to hear your response.
Thanks!
Still, where are the descendants? In the real world, women would have claimed their children were fathered by Joseph even they weren’t. But instead we are expected to believe that Joseph had sex with multiple women, but only impregnated Emma. It flies in the face of logic.
To me this is the most glaring evidence against the polygamy claim. We clearly misunderstand what was happening
Don't worry Brother John. People like JaredShipps (and his heroes, Brian and Jacob) will twist that plain PROOF that JS never practiced polygamy into some personal pretzel they can swallow like: "Oh, a miracle occurred to prevent all those births by JS's DOZENs of additions to his harem--in order to keep polygamy a secret until after JS's death, when BY and others could feel free to spike up the incidents of polygamous marriages (with teenaged girls, especially, at that point, for some odd reason) and polygamous births. The Lord works in mysterious ways" (which only JaredShipps, Brian, Jacob, and others with their secret De-Coder rings can decipher for us uninitiated rubes who believe JS when he made it crystal clear he NEVER preached or practiced Polygamy or taking Plural Wives or Whatever and was ALWAYS faithful to his ONE and ONLY one wife, Emma.)
Don't worry--Ace decoders Brian and Jacob have some response brewing: "Obviously a miracle occurred that prevented these children from appearing until after JS's death, when an amazing SPIKE took place in births to newly-increased polygamous harems . . ."
It's not as unlikely as you might think. Given that only a handful of women claimed to have sex with him within this 2 year period, and that it wasn't a repeated occurance. Women are only fertile at most 7 days a month.
Take Emma for example. She didn't conceive until 9 months after they were married. Even then, 5 out of their 9 children died before 2.
As secretive as this practice would have been, it's not surprising if he didn't want to have children with these plural wives, or that they would be raised unknowing their true father.
@ a sensible and well reasoned perspective, but it requires that we accept that Joseph’s practice of polygamy was not wide spread and that his sexual encounters with these women was once or even infrequent. For that to be true, we would have to believe that Joseph was indifferent toward sex. If he was, why ask God about multiple wives in the first place?
You should have Jeremy Hoop on your podcast.
GREAT video!!!
If you don't know anything about the topic and don't mind the insults.
Brian Hales is a Joseph Smith monogamy denier.
Believing Joseph didn’t introduce and practice polygamy puts an individual in a similar camp as, someone who would “… say that the sun does not shine while he sees it”.
It's not that obvious.
@@alexblake5743 Apparently you’ve not investigated the evidence. Here’s a question I’ve not seen asked: Why did William Law who was Joseph’s 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency plot with others to kill Joseph?
I’m guessing you haven’t looked very far into the issues. It’s always easy to stereotype the opposition when you haven’t really considered the information that would change their minds so fully.
Also, it has not been fun, nor easy to make this realization. I love God, and I love the restoration. The Lord is helping me through a transition I never expected.
If he practiced polygamy where are the children?
So he preached another Christ
What does it matter now whether or not if the church practiced polygamy or not. Is all behind us now what’s past is past leave it alone.
- “14 I have seen also in the prophets an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies...20 in the LATTER DAYS ye shall consider it perfectly. 21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. 22 But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.” Jeremiah 23
@@maryloumackelprang5856 It’s important to understand the nature of god and how he feels about daughters in his kingdom
@@BB_Ull Bingo, and they skipped Jeremiah 23 in Come Follow Me...
@@Hmcc0712 Yes, and jacob makes it crystal clear. No woman, girl, or for that matter men and boys should be subjected to Section 132--
Look at the 2025 Come Follow Me Lesson on D&C 132. The Church is even using Fanny Alger and Mercy Thompson as some of the most ridiculous examples of alleged but not proven polygamous wives of Joseph and Hyrum.
You won't hear public conference talks defending polygamy. Instead it's a quiet--go to the Church website. Or, let's just talk about it in the classrooms and homes.
It is not in the past, unfortunately, because the Church keeps Section 132 and its "principle and doctrine" of "many wives and concubines" in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Jacob 2-3 makes it crystal clear that according to the Lord and God Almighty, "many wives and concubines" is WHOREDOM. This means, the Church is teaching whoredom in Seminary, Sunday School and pushing it into our homes.
I object. This is bearing false witness against Joseph to cover the sins of Brigham and others. This is taking the Lord's name in vain, claiming he is the author of, rather than the one who "suffered" the sins of "many wives and concubines" committed by them of old and in all the lands of his people. God does not have a caste system for women of many wives and concubines on Earth or in Heaven.
I have loved ones who have left the Church because they do not want their children to be taught WHOREDOM. It is very sad, because in doing so they are missing out on all the beauty and truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Let's hear what God Himself says about polygamy.
I TIMOTHY 3:2
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach..."
I TIMOTHY 3:2
"Let Decons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well..."
TITUS 1:6
"If a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination..."
Notice in all three verses God says:
"The husband of one wife!"
You have to look at all scripture together. You're clearly a non-member (which begs the question why you're even here) that has no knowledge of modern revelation. Furthermore, you'll have to explain why prophets in the Old Testament had multiple wives.
PREACH!!!!!!!!!
Isn't that the point? Why would they add that? Why say specifically a bishop or a deacon? That implies they were practicing polygamy, but that those in certain positions should only have one.
@zissler1
Read the Bible verses again, it self explanatory.
@@AlbertJLouie No, no actually it isn't. There isn't a specific verse that ever, ever condemns polygamy. 50+ for homosexuality, why? It only says for certain positions they didn't want to do polygamy, and even then if you interpreted it the way you do, it doesn't condemn it. "Read the bible again" isn't an answer, it's a cop out, because there is no proof. And I don't say this with any negative feelings, but I just really believe it to be true.
This is by far the best conversation on this topic. Brian and Jacob continues to amaze me. Brian has signaled and is the watchman on the watchtower cautioning wayward souls that are reaching beyond truth but have become accusers of the restitution of all things in this last dispensation. People will but his kingdom will in these last days forward will stand forever. For those that are not only deniers but followers of false doctrine , I repeat what Brian has said before it’s too late. Brian is nice and has challenged local leaders to stop this infiltration. Blessings
Brian was also on QWIC Media with Greg Matsen.
Sorry but Brian has outdated evidence and has sorely represented his strongest evidence. A pile of nothing burgers, is still a nothing burger. Ask Brian to speak to Karen Hyatts "Wo Unto Ye Scribes" where she outs Brians deceptions.
I have held off calling them deceptions, but it has become way to blatant.
Perhaps Brian feels he is "Lying for the Lord." Because oddly, I have had 2 seminary teachers actually say that was what Joseph was doing. When in fact, Joseph was the honest one whose character has been tarred and feathered by Brian and the cabal of Church historians.
Somehow Brian has elevated himself as judge of those who disagree with him as apostates and polygamy "deniers" when he cannot answer to their findings.
What do you mean the "restoration of all things." There was no need to restore a "whoredom" that was condemned fiercely by the Lord in Jacob 2-3.
Brigham lied about Oliver practicing polygamy, Emma attempting to kill Joseph, Emma conspiring with the mob, Joseph appointing Hyrum as successor, Joseph teaching the priesthood ban etc etc etc. How can you not fathom the idea that Brigham also lied about polygamy?
The priesthood ban did begin with Joseph. Just like plural marriage and the temple endowment, the initial teachings began with Joseph and were expanded by Brigham. Joseph was the architect, Brigham the builder. Both were prophets.
@@jaredshipp9207 This is not supported by the actual history
I own you.
@@jaredshipp9207Joesph did not have a priesthood ban. Early Black Elders in Joseph’s time
@@jaredshipp9207 Wrong my friend, read Joseph’s own words on our African American brothers and sisters.
Amen brother! Let's just keep the secrets. Our fundamentalist cousins have lead the way. We know the joy that polygamy has brought them and if we keep the faith, we'll be back in business. Joseph was pretty good at keeping secrets. We don't need any riff raff in the Celestial Kingdom. Light of Christ is a disinfectant we don't need. Let's just keep shaming the deniers until they go away.
32:34 you do realize Joseph revealed the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, but they were taken by enemies and edited in a way to discredit Joseph?
Now grant the possibility that the secret-polygamist apostles (those in secret chambers who desired Joseph’s life) took the revelation on eternal marriage and edited it into what is now D&C 132.
You guys have no problem accepting that the 116 pages were real, so can you grant that the revelation on eternal marriage was real without “polygamy deniers” having to supply it?
No, because the earliest manuscripts do in fact exist and are from the Nauvoo period. lol.
Where is the historical evidence of Joseph smith ever using the term “celestial marriage”?
I am definitely a denier. On May 25, 1844 Joseph gave a speech in which he denied being a polygamist. That was three weeks before his death. Emma claimed he wasn't a participant. So either he was truthful, or he lied. I don't believe he was a liar.
I believe he was sealed to several women and men in an effort to form a chain of authority in a celestial kingdom government. You can see an illustration of that concept of celestial government as drawn by Orson Hyde in 1847 in the Millennial Star. Based on this concept, families were not the central focus of sealings back then. That's why Joseph was never sealed to his parents. This particular rabbit hole deserves a lot better review than I'm going to give here, but it's important to learn the motive for all the sealings. There is absolutely no evidence that Joseph had any offspring with anyone other than Emma. Being sealed to Joseph Smith did not equate to being married to him.
That concept of celestial government, also known as the Law of Adoption, was corrected by revelation through Wilford Woodruff in 1893.
I personally suspect that John C Bennet brought the concept of Spiritual Wives (a term never used by Joseph Smith) into the church and as a counselor in the First Presidency was able to secretly convince others that it came by way of revelation. The secretive nature of polygamy in the early church is in total opposition to the "Law of Common Consent" as revealed by the Lord. Mr Bennet was subsequently excommunicated from the church on charges of adultery and homosexuality.
Section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants is suspect in my mind for several reasons: 1. It didn't appear until well after Joseph's death. Earlier transcripts during Joseph's lifetime were not authored by him. 2. It contradicts entirely the earlier D & C section on marriage. 3. The language and tone of the text is completely inconsistent with all other revelations.
So the bottom line is that I believe that Joseph was not a liar, and that Brigham was deceived by Mr. Bennet.
Joseph Smith did practice polygamy which included physical relations. For a time he denied it publicly. He had his reasons for denying it publicly - but to answer your question - Yes he practiced polygamy, yes he lied about it for a time, and yes he still was a prophet.
The no offspring fact is the smoking gun for me, especially after being married to supposedly so many women. Joseph Smith had a very different idea what "sealing" meant, and it's dishonest to attribute Brigham Young's version of sealing and the endowment that BY wrote himself, to Joseph Smith's version. For such an important practice as polygamy to raise up a nation, Joseph Smith sure failed miserably. All other polygamists had no trouble having a ridiculous amount of offspring.
@@colt40fly Your point is well taken. Obviously Joseph decided not to have children with these women. How exactly he was practicing birth control, I don't know. He and others married women of all ages - and if you think Joseph married young women and decided to not have relations with them, then you pushing the limits of credulity in my opinion. Not to mention all of the other evidences that Joseph did have relations with them. I know you have your rebuttals to the historical evidences of physical relations in these marriage, but there is just too much evidence in my opinion for the rebuttals to hold up.
@@raddiemutto7934 Yeah, Apparently Joseph Smith was the only polygamist that figured out birth control. The chances of having relations with that many women in such a short timeline with zero offspring is close to zero. There's zero contemporary evidence he had relations with anyone other than Emma, so I guess it just comes down to who you believe. I choose to believe someone that claimed direct communication with God and who translated the Book of Mormon over other prophets that never spoke with God. I've seen the arguments objectively on both sides and it's more plausible to me Joseph Smith was not a liar and condemned polygamy. There's a reason the church will not release the William Clayton journals. I hope they do. More people have left the church believing Joseph Smith was a pedophile than for any other reason so this debate is well worth having.
@@raddiemutto7934 a pile of nothing burger evidence is a nothin burger
What I don’t understand about this is that if Joseph introduced and practiced polygamy - it means he is a LIAR. How can you trust him if he lied about this fundamental thing?! The polygamy denier camp is a much more understandable position for faithful Mormons to take as they are trying to say that their prophet was a trustworthy person who followed the standard that their scriptures put forth. The BOM is more anti-polygamy than the Bible!!
After watching many of these debates on the topic, diving down the rabbit hole, and reading far too many comments on videos like this I have noticed something interesting: it seems from my sampling that the Polygamy believers (opposed to the polygamy deniers) use logical fallacies and personal attacks towards those who have come to a different conclusion. I see name calling, finger pointing, and cruel comments about their faith.
Studying is wonderful. But let’s not become all manner of “ites”. Remember, “in coming days it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, constant and comforting companion of the Holy Ghost!” We need the spirit to help us discern truth from err.
Name calling, finger pointing, and condemning always makes your argument weak.
You see it on both sides. The Lord's mouthpieces have multiple wives sealed to them. If you believe in their authority then that should persuade you in the right direction. But the Holy Ghost is the best source of truth on this. And there is a true and correct position, to be certain.
You just did exactly what you tell people not to do. It is definitely in both sides. I was told that if I didn't believe Brigham Young faked a revelation and the church had been in error every since, when Jesus comes, he will tell me he never knew me. It is definitely on both sides.
My perception is that Satan will do anything to separate us and to call into question the Prophets. That is exactly what the polygamy debate is doing.
@@marcipratt7185 Thank you! You’re right
@@topazblahblah Here's the problem though, those men aren't the Lord's mouthpieces at all. Oaks and Nelson are total Gadiantons and false prophets. This is easily provable.
*Personally attacks faithful Latter-Day Saints
Brighamite just means latter day saint. Its weird that we use old, divisive slang still. I guess it can be called "quaint" but in today's vernacular the polygamy denialists use it with derisive vitriol. Its time to retire it unless we are referring to a specific souce, like a quote that uses it, from back in the day.
But it does nicely get to the distinction in this issue . . . do you believe Joseph or Brigham?
Would you suggest a substitute term?
But maybe "polygamy denialists" needs to also retire . . .?
Brian, did Hyrum hold the sealing keys concurrently with Joseph? If not, what sealing keys was Hyrum given in D&C 124?
can someone make Hoop watch this and come to his senses?
He and Michelle Stone and Whitney Horning and the Prices and Rob Fotheringham and Hemlock Knots have already debunked everything Brian has. Brian just figures he has The Church backing him up.
They have God backing them up. The Book of Mormon tells us to repent, could polygamy be one of the things we are supposed to repent of--along with Brigham Young's other doctrinal inventions?
Answer to Question #1.
Joseph never taught celestial plural marriage. It wasn't a thing until later. He did condemn having more than one wife multiple times.
Simplistic, lazy, and ultimately untrue answer.
Nonsense
@@user-yn9tv3pw6u prove me wrong.
Grateful again for the Red Pill.
Such a pathetic explanation of the October 1843 journal entry. You don’t get to just cross out and add words and write it into history as if this is what Joseph actually said. We don’t get to put words in Joseph’s mouth that he didn’t say, that’s dishonest. “On this law”, meaning the law of the church known as CI, which Joseph published six different times.
I disagree. Willard Richards scribed the entry and knew about plural marriage. He had already been sealed to two plural wives on January 18, 1843, Sarah and Nancy Longstroth. Richards knew that the "law" mentioned could authorize polygamy, otherwise it could not be practiced, and JS held the keys to exercise that law.
@@brianhales8971 Can you acknowledge though that to write this modified journal every into church history claiming that these are the words spoken by Joseph, is dishonest? If they had left the entry unchanged and then tried to explain what Joseph meant, then sure, but it’s still wrong to claim that Joseph said these things. You’d have a better argument claiming that the original entry was what Joseph said, but that he was again just making a public denial. I’m sorry but your explanation is far too much of a stretch. How do we know that the “law” is not the law given in CI? Remember that the law of marriage was still in the D&C at this time and was being published publicly by Joseph himself. If someone crosses out large portions of my journal 10 years after I die and then writes in new words to flip what I said 180 degrees, and leaves a note in the margin that says to be revised, I sure hope people won’t accept those as my words.
@@brianhales8971 Ah so thus Willard Richards is authorized to lie. Seriously Brian, can you hear yourself?
@@Commenter2121 I really am impressed, Brother Commenter2121, at your incisive responses to this dude that keeps telling us about his 3 published books on the subject. You refuse to be intimidated or back-off and get right to the essential points of every rebuttal hurled at you.
I'm not kidding when I say: it is a lot of fun seeing your clear and eloquent mind at work . . . about a subject that is SIGNIFICANT to the members of the Lord's kingdom right now.
This is NOT some "fringe debate" going on right now. SO MUCH IS AT STAKE.
So, a simple: "Thank You" is in order.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c And Brother BridgeBuilder, may I simply echo to you now all the accolades I just gave to Commenter2121:
I really am impressed, BridgeBuilder, at your incisive responses to this dude that keeps telling us about his 3 published books on the subject. You refuse to be intimidated or back-off and get right to the essential points of every rebuttal hurled at you.
I'm not kidding when I say: it is a lot of fun seeing your clear and eloquent mind at work . . . about a subject that is SIGNIFICANT to the members of the Lord's kingdom right now.
This is NOT some "fringe debate" going on right now. SO MUCH IS AT STAKE.
So, a simple: "Thank You" is in order.
BTW: Something else just dawned on me about you two: I believe the Lord has brought you two into these debates at this time--and that the Lord's grace is attending and shaping your understandings and responses.
(And I am also impressed at your civility, calm, politeness, and charity that accompany your responses, while always maintaining a sense of urgency, purpose, non-compromise, and focus.
That's a nice trick, amigos--harmonizing charity with courage and a sense of urgency.
Spot-on.
A bigger question for my apostate son isn’t polygamy per se but the age of the man vs age of girl being married. 50 vs 14 respectfully. Particularly the prophets after Brigham young. Anyone have thoughts on this.
First, that difference in age wasn't all that uncommon at the time. It's important we don't look at the ages through the lens of presentism. Second, there is no evidence the marriage was consummated. Enemies of the Church simply like to highlight the age issue in order to make it appear scandalous without having any real understanding of sealings or honest concern for Helen or anyone else involved.
For Utah polygamy Brigham Young strongly and publicly encouraged waiting until 18 yrs old to consummate marriage. So even if a 14 year old was sealed to a man sexual relations would wait until they were 18 years old. 100 years ago teen marriage and sex even to older men were not all that uncommon.
@@veritasrestituta812 Do you have a source for this?
*@@jaredshipp9207 I don't know why I even respond to JaredShipp, knowing how deeply he snoozes through his life-long polygamy fantasias, but as they say about Septic Tank cleaners--"somebody's got to do it."
* So, Brother Jared, the comment was about a post-Joseph Smith polygamous marriage, and you commented instead on a marriage that DIDN'T EVEN OCCUR! Not a good start, amigo (even if typical . . .)
* But, yes, those post-Joseph Smith polygamous marriages with teenagers were always "faithfully" (after all, multiply, etc.) consummated by their often-MUCH OLDER sheikh/husbands.
* And, yes, the age disparities increased enormously as older, gray-bearded sheikhs added younger and younger (often teenage) wives to their growing harems.
* And for some reason, LDS leaders/ sheikhs at that time were especially inclined to increase those age disparities as well as regularly add teenagers to their harems, while entering their own "golden years":
o While in his mid-40's, Brigham Young married 15 y.o. Clara Decker, 16 y.o. Lucy Bigelow (and her 19 y.o. sister, Mary Jane--ON THE SAME DAY),
o When Brigham Young was 55, Wilford Woodruff offered him his 14 y.o. daughter, Phebe (but she ended up marrying Lorenzo Snow (he 44, she 17),
o Lorenzo Snow vs. some of his other wives' ages: (he 42, she 16), (he 57, she 15)
o Orson Hyde: (first wife:19 y.o. Marinda Johnson; last plural wife: (he 60, she 18)
o Duncan McArthur: (first wife: she 16; later plural wife: (he 61, she 16)
o James Allred: (first wife: he 19, she 17; later wife: (he 73, she 13--Kisner Olson)
Now, let's see how ages differed BEFORE polygamy (since the Brighamites keep telling us it was TYPICAL in monogamous marriages at that time for teen girls to marry older men:
* Joseph Smith married Emma Hale (His ONLY WIFE EVER) when he was 21 and Emma was 22.
* Brigham Young married his first wife, Meriam Works, when he was 23 and she was 18.
* John Taylor married Leonara Agnes Cannon in 1833, when he was 24 and she was 36.
* When Wilford Woodruff married Phoebe Whittemore Carter in 1837, both were 30 years-old.
@@veritasrestituta812 then why bother to marry them? Why not just wait til they are older?
Brian, are you going to turn off the comments on your RUclips videos too? I like how you made a post on your FB page that had multiple questions, that no one can give answers to because you censored people from doing so.
@brianhales8971 you start out with ad hominems, this tells me a few things:
If someone starts a debate about historical information with ad hominems, it often indicates that the person may be avoiding the actual substance of the argument. Ad hominems are attacks on a person's character or motives rather than addressing the facts or reasoning being presented. This could suggest a few things about the person:
1. Weak Argumentation: They may lack strong evidence or logical reasoning to support their position on the historical topic, so they resort to discrediting the opponent instead.
2. Emotional Reaction: The person may be emotionally invested in their viewpoint and may find it difficult to engage with counterarguments calmly.
3. Lack of Respect for Discourse: They may not value the principles of constructive, respectful debate and may prioritize winning the argument over seeking truth or understanding.
4. Deflection or Distraction: The person could be trying to shift the focus away from the actual issue at hand, possibly because they are uncomfortable with the evidence or arguments being presented.
In any case, ad hominem attacks typically weakens the overall quality of the debate and hinders productive discourse.
Brian Hales cherry picks evidence. If he was an honest historian, he would also address all the inconsistencies, editing of documents, Emma, Joseph, and Hyrum’s consistent denials, and so much more. This argument and interview falls flat on its face for ignoring “all” the data. Everything you accuse the deniers of is absolutely happening in this camp.
Adding: it’s incredibly disgusting for two men to defend polygamy so wildly and not take into account the hearts of women. Be honest with yourself and say if you’d be willing to watch your wife take on a dozen to 50+ husbands. Heavenly Father loves all of his children equally and cares about their hearts and righteous desires. Polygamy is an imbalance between men and women and it is time to see it for what it truly is. Joseph did not have carefully worded denials. Brian Hales has carefully worded denials. Listen to him twist Joseph’s words repeatedly. It’s so obvious it’s gross.
This video isn't meant to cover every evidence/source. Brian Hales has his books and website articles that go over every piece of counter-evidence you can find.
@@logannance10 not buying it. Brian Hales ignores so many inconsistencies. I’d love to see him take his so called evidence to a court of law and see how well it holds up.
@monicafoster5839 What inconsistencies? If you don't believe his 4 volume set of books published and peer-reviewed on the subject, then maybe you'll believe an attorney like Mark Tensmeyer. He did a long-form interview with Michelle Brady Stone I think you'll appreciate.
@ Hales has really convincing evidence in his volumes and I use to believe all of it, even the idea that a prophet would lie for the Lord or teach different doctrine in private vs public. But the more I studied the scriptures and had access to the documents only historians use to have access to, the more I could see that things didn’t match up. If you only study one side of the doctrine of polygamy, you’re only going to have a strong testimony of the side you studied, and any idea that doesn’t seem to fit, you either push away or twist it to make it fit. Taking all of the history, good and bad, paints a clearer picture that LDS history is not so cut and dry. This nonsense of people arguing about who’s right and who’s wrong is just another reactive of Satan to keep us from trying to understand the real history and the true doctrine. If historians that believe the current narrative were brave enough to address ALL the inconsistencies in their narrative, then maybe we would get somewhere of discovering the truth. Let’s start somewhere simple, like addressing Brigham Young’s speeches. And the slander he spoke of Emma. And then move onto his speeches in Utah. We aren’t discrediting any prophets when we study their words to gain more understanding. But it can surely open our eyes to understanding when things were spoken by the spirit and when they were spoken by men.
Amen sister!@@monicafoster5839
I see this as equal to trying to prove or disprove events in the Book of Mormon or even the Bible. It's going to be a whole lot of spinning wheels. There's a stack of evidence both for and against the possibility of Joseph receiving a command from God and implementing covertly. Which stack is higher is debatable...
I'm working on compiling as I have opportunity.
It's ugly and I want to get to the bottom of it. No matter what the outcome I know that the Book of Mormon was divinely given and Joseph was indeed a good man and genuine Prophet. 🕊️
Isaiah 55:8-9 comes to my mind. I know God has a glorious plan for us. The problem is that sometimes we as mortals get caught up in the thick of thin things. I personally refuse to question God and His plan.
I understand that people don't want to believe in plural marriage. There were members even during the time of Joseph Smith Jr that couldn't accept it. The problem comes when you let it consume you.
I don't see anything good coming from denying Joseph's involvement. You ultimately have to justify or find an answer to why you continue as a member. I think you end up traveling down paths that lead you out of the church. You cannot reconcile your membership if you believe Brigham Young was a womanizer and a charlatan.
Why is it that members who deny Joseph practiced plural marriage always go to the question. IF HE PRACTICED PLURAL MARRIAGE WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN? Seriously, Do we need to have children to end this plural marriage contention?? Stop and think about what was going on during this time.
You would have to believe that God is also a liar. I say that because God promised Joseph that the priesthood and gospel would never again be taken from the earth. But, if Brigham is responsible for what many accuse him of why would God allow him to lead the saints and pass the keys to Brigham?? It basically comes down to the keys of the priesthood. Another scripture that comes to mind is D&C 121: 36-37 If you believe that Brigham was a womanizer you also have to believe the priesthood left the earth and the church upon the death of Joseph and Hyrum.
I was born in 1960 and always knew Joseph practiced plural marriage. I TRUST GOD PERIOD!!!
Please consider that argument, the Church falls apart is black and white thinking. Words of Mormon in the Book of Mormon. Start with verse 14 when Church was off track. It turned out well for the Church. Just because Brigham and other early prophets mistakenly practiced polygamy does not mean the Lord deserted the Church or the people. He has grace.
Well said. Its a new rabbit hole, taking a new group out of the church. Brigham bad, = president nelson bad.. church bad
I really like that Alma the elder wasn't part of any chain of succession. King Noah had put down all the priests that might have been considered in a line of succession and replaced them with wicked ones, which included Alma. Yet when Alma repented, he was given power and authority to teach the gospel. That makes sense to me, and it's wonderful that we have the key to discern true prophets from false ones: ye shall know them by their fruits. It's wonderful that we can completely trust in God, as you say.
@@confusedwhynot so true..but its even more than brigham.. ALL the early prophets were evil too, the endowment is a fraud (because it’s from Brigham) and president nelson is bad because he is sealed to wendy. It’s Michelles job yo correct the the church. Pure apostasy
While I don't think Joseph practiced polygamy, I think Brigham Young was a prophet and I'm grateful for the fruits of polygamy in establishing a strong foundation for the restoration.
I think that is about the only fair way to look at it if you take the stance that JS didn’t practice polygamy.
The real question is What was D and C 132? A conspiracy or a revelation? If a conspiracy, then there is no objective way Brigham Young was a prophet. It really all comes down to that.
It is possible that Joseph taught about sealing to multiple spouses since both Hyrum and Brigham were widowers who remarried. Then Brigham extrapolated from those teachings. I don't think the idea could have come purely from Brigham, I don't think the twelve apostles would have let someone conjure doctrine ex-nihilo, other apostles who apostatized were exomunicated, same would have been done to Brigham if he was soo far off the mark. It is possible that the implementation of polygamy was not done in the correct manner, still studying the topic.
@@ignaciodelgado889 yes Hyrum was a widow but only until 1837 when he married Mary Fielding Smith, who lived until 1852. So he wasn’t a widow when he entered I to plural marriage for the first time.
Same is true of BY. His first wife died but he married Mary Angell Young in 1834. She also outlived him and supported him in his polygamous marriages.
@@samuelmoon3051 What I mean is that they both had lost wives which they loved and had children with. Then remarried and also had children with the new wives. If Joseph is teaching about sealings then the question naturally arise of how will all that work out. I believe Joseph taught them that they can be sealed to both wives and be with them in the eternities. From there Brigham could have extrapolated.
There is a big division between Nauvoo leaders who received the temple ordinances and those that did not.
New Mormon definition for a bold face lie - Coded Language.
A perspective I have heard before. Agree to disagree. If she had faith in God before Joseph died, where did it suddenly go? An amazing attribute of faith is that it sustains you through times of trial. Hers seems to have crumbled.
Brian, I am grateful for the life's-work you have accomplished in collecting polygamy documents. Jacob, you've produced marvelous content on other subjects.
The question of LDS polygamy is an argument among brothers, as William Lane Craig says. And on that point, guys, this video is simply awful and embarrassing. It’s painfully obvious that neither of you has seriously engaged with the narrative you’re trying to debunk.
I’m only 15 minutes in, and already, the amount of projection, straw-manning, cherry-picking, and sheer ignorance of literally hours of contrary evidence produced addressing your specific arguments is stunning.
How can you both claim to be truth seekers if you ignore the counter-evidence? A lie gets halfway 'round the world before the truth can get its boots on. What’s the point of painstakingly addressing your arguments if you just ignore it? You have failed to steelman your opponents' position and, sadly, do nothing here to move this debate forward.
Mr Gary, As of now, I have one question for you: Do you think Willard Richards and John Taylor killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith?
@@PresidentBrighamYoung, my interest is in whether polygamy is of God and whether Joseph taught and practiced it. There are many other areas of church history that require similar hours of research to gain an informed opinion and the martyrdom isn't one where I have done so.
@@GaryLArnell Thanks for showing how seriously we should take you and your mormon protestant opinions. The fact you can't just say 'no' says it all LOL.
There is no debate. There is simply the truth everybody knows, including every prophet and apostle right up to the present, aside from a group of spiritually immature members who can't emotionally handle the issue and use revisionist history and misinterpretation of scripture to get around the issue.
@@PresidentBrighamYoung, "no", I don't think Willard Richards and John Taylor killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith, but church history has been so obfuscated and corrupted that I'm unwilling to be certain about any disputed part of it unless I do my own investigating.
Those who claim that plural marriage is always an abomination, they should be aware that you do not have to practice it to commit abomination:
You can not support any sexual relation between 2 males You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22
You will not allow your mother, sister, daughter to wear trousers, ties or any man clothes “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 22:5
You shall not lie. Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight. Proverbs 12:2
You can not support any gay agenda. He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 17:15
Careful being an arrogant person. Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished. Proverbs 16:5
You can not judge wrong. A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight. Proverbs 11:1
Be careful being dishonest. or all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 25:16
Personally I don't think it's hard to believe that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy at all. Here is just one of many reasons why people might suspect the evidence used to support Joseph's polygamy. This is the ruling from the judge of the temple law case and what he stated about the women proclaiming to be Joseph's wives. Amazing how this is often left out of the conversation:
"It is charged by the Respondents, as an echo of the Utah
Church, that Joseph Smith, "the Martyr," secretly taught and
practiced polygamy; and the Utah contingent furnishes the evi-
dence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would
be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false
testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of
all the evidence and circumstances surrqunding the alleged 'inter-
course, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were
but sports in "nest hiding." In view of the contention of the Salt
Lake party, that polygamy obtained at Nauvoo as early as 1841, it
must be a little embarrassing to President Woodruff of that organi-
zation when he is confronted, as he was in the evidence in this case,
with a published card in the church organ at Nauvoo in October,
1843, certifying that he knew of no other rule or system of marriage
than the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and
that the "secret wife system," charged against the church, was a
ereature of invention by one Dr. Bennett, and that they knew of no
such society. That certificate was signed by the leading members
of the church, including John Taylor the former President of the
Utah Church. And a, similar certificate was published by the
Ladies Relief Society of the same place, signed by Emma Smith, the
wife of Joseph Smith, and Phoebe Woodruff, wife of the present
President Woodruff. No such marriage ever occurred under the
rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit
intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood, and his wife, Emma, was giving birth to healthy children
in regular order, and was enciente at the time of Joseph's dea,th.
But if it were conceded that Joseph Smith, and Hyrum,
his brother, did secretly practice concubinage, is the church to be
charged with those liaisons, and the doctrine of polygamy to be
predicated thereon of the church? If so, I suspect the doctrine
of polygamy might be imputed to many of the Gentile churches.
Certainly it was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized, as a
doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young."
Jacob is so cute how he thinks that not having any insider spilling the beans means it must not be true. I get that he is ignoring the fact that the insiders had as much to lose as Brigham by revealing the truth and that he has convinced himself that blood atonement was just a phrase and not really executed, but the lack of insiders revealing the truth doesn't mean anything. Let's not forget what the temple oath they took back then was.
Jacob’s arrogance is nauseating. Franklin Richards was not in the high council meeting so whatever he heard is minimum secondhand. Plus, section 132 makes no mention of Levirate marriage.
you judging his "arrogance" is also nauseating. Just make your case without the ad hominem.
@@Commenter2121 I agree
You make a great point, lets not stoop to thier level and denigrate:)
Commenter2121--please assure us all that you will join all future comment boards as the Lord's true, living, and restored church goes through this most crucial juncture since Joseph walked out of the grove (or since Brigham Young foisted polygamy upon the church, and tried to frame Joseph for it).
We REALLY NEED your CLEAR Voice and courage as we go down this road together . . .
MBS's movement is flagging. The only thing keeping it going is the prurience of self-obsessed persons who will stop at nothing to militate against the character of the prophets and apostles.
Maybe, amigo, she is simply trying to sustain and support the Lord's founding prophet, Joseph Smith, against those who "militate against the character of the Lord's founding prophet and apostle," especially as the evidence mounts that Joseph simply told the truth.
@@jonterry9843 That's not what she is doing. She is attacking the prophets. She has been made aware of her Korihor-like dissonance, and still insists on doubling down on it.