Thanks for laying out the economic and sociological aspects of Nauvoo, and most importantly, the organized underground criminal network. I rarely see that it’s discussed anywhere and it’s impossible to get a good understanding of the history without being aware such important aspects. I really appreciate you taking the time to research and discuss it. Great job! 😊
I'm so sorry it keeps getting pushed back! It's going to be a little while yet before I can get back into that research, but I promise to get there ASAP.
I loved this episode! Thank you for your efforts to bring forth the truth that has been hidden for far too long. Those who love the truth and are willing to question what they thought was true that isn't will see through the lies. The hard-hearted and those who love and make lies won't. Keep on keeping on!!❤
Another well documented video. Thanks for all the research you put into all your videos. I know it takes a lot of time but keep getting the truth out. I look forward to part 2! ❤
I'm amazed at your ability to study, and sift through so much information from all these sources. I love that you are such a big part of this movement. Thank you for all you are doing! Praying for you, Michelle
This is a topic I haven't read about myself yet. But my mom said we are related to Chauncey Higbee (and Francis)! "They were sons of Judge Elias Higbee, brother of our ancestor. I'm glad that Elias died before Chauncey and Francis were involved in the Expositor and against Joseph Smith. 😔"
Excellent work.. you are a blessing. Thank you for sharing your research.. instead of sitting on the fence like a whole lot of others who claim to have all the evidence, research but don’t actually share it.:
This provides some interesting backstory. Thank you for your research. If Richards was the one that propositioned Foster's wife (1:39:00) that would explain why Richards and Taylor reportedly were so incessant about getting JSJr to sign the Expositor to destruction. This is a story told by William Smith a few decades after the fact but which he says he witnessed firsthand (about Richards and Taylor). None of the Elders involved could afford for the allegations of polygamy or spiritual wifery to come out and Richards had been seen by Foster himself. The WIkipedia article for the Nauvoo Expositor has a lot of inaccurate info. It accuses JSJr of all the things that were said by Foster but for which Foster never said JSJr was the perpetrator (thanks to Fawn Brodie).
I’m so glad you mentioned William Law’s nonexistent diary! No scholar has ever laid eyes on the original. I get so tired of seeing people quote it like it’s a valid source.
LDS historian Lyndon Cook obtained Law's journal in 1978 from his descendant, Leilani Law. Cook first referenced Law's journal in his1982 paper "William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter." Michelle Stone quoted from Cook's paper in this video. If you have read the 1844 entries from Law's journal which I have posted on Michelle's videos numerous times over the last six months---and if you had the ability to make logical and rational conclusions about it---then you would deduce that no faked journal could have possibly given so much detail about those events which are corroborated from multiple independent sources.
@@randyjordan5521 Yep, I'm the one with motivated reasoning LOL Randy, can you please see how ridiculous your comment is? Let me help, whoever created this "diary" would have had full access to all the other sources, so your assertion that the events being "corroborated from multiple independent sources" is proof that it is legit is not helpful. This shouldn't be so hard. Please provide evidence for your claim that Cook "obtained Law's journal" at all. If he "obtained" it, where is it? Why isn't it allowed to be seen and researched? Why would he keep it hidden? I think what you mean is he obtained the transcript -- which is exactly what I said. You base your entire narrative on this journal, so I'm not surprised you are so desperate to not see it invalidated, but you haven't even responded to Law himself claiming that Joseph NEVER propositioned Jane, which IS verified by his and his son's multiple vehement assertions, and the fact that in his newspaper, intentionally dedicated to smearing Joseph Smith, he didn't say anything about what would have been by far the most damning and enraging accusation he could possibly have against him. And the fact that, although this journal was clearly intended for an audience, he didn't use any of it in the entire newspaper he published, and wrote mostly on his own. Please explain all of those things.
Guys lets be fair about this subject, the far and away most likely and proper interpretation, is the daughter-in-law(?) typed up the oral history because the Law family wanted their side of the events to be told. We can never really know if anyone was propositioned, however it is more likely that the Law account is based in Hyrum intentionally falsely smearing both Mr and Mrs Law. That jives with Laws other accounts of the Smiths. That also explains why William Law doesn't want to rehash it later. Remember Gov Ford's letter accusations for and against a Smith when tried in Nauvoo guarantees a Smith win, thus Hyrum made the counter claims, take it to court and the Smiths will win, take it to council(s) and the Smiths will win. Had Hyrum's claims been truth the Laws would have been divorced, and Joseph would have "sealed" himself to Jane just to crush William.
@@MichelleBStone " Please provide evidence for your claim that Cook "obtained Law's journal" at all." Cook detailed that in the article which you quoted. Maybe you should pay attention to what you're trying to talk about. As to why the original hasn't been seen, you'd have to talk to Law's descendants to learn that. Law's journal entries have been quoted by numerous LDS historians since Cook first published them. So if you doubt its validity, you should take that up with them. "the fact that in his newspaper, intentionally dedicated to smearing Joseph Smith, he didn't say anything about what would have been by far the most damning and enraging accusation he could possibly have against him." All you're doing here is showing us that you are mentally unable to consider historical references in context of other sources or events. At the time the Expositor was published, polygamy had become an open secret in Nauvoo. Most of the anti-polygamy church leaders (Law, Cowles etc.) had been presented the revelation by Joseph or Hyrum personally. That had been an established fact since Hyrum had introduced the revelation to the Nauvoo High Council 10 months earlier. The purpose of the Expositor affidavits and details of polygamy was to expose it to the general public, to counter Joseph's and Hyrum's repeated denials of it. The publishers' agenda was to force Smith to step down as church president, so those men could act as a caretaker committee to abolish polygamy, renounce Joseph's recent heretical doctrine of multiple gods, and his secret plot to establish a theocratic kingdom with him at its head. That's why Law & Co. formed a new church: it was a reform movement, much like the RLDS church was founded as a reform movement 16 years later. That's why Law had Smith legally charged with polygamy and adultery: it's because Smith refused to admit to polygamy or to renounce it. Smith knew that if he was brought into court to face the charges, everybody who knew of his polygamous/adulterous practices would be called as witnesses, and he would lose his case, and he would be forced to resign as church president. So, when Law & Co, published the Expositor and the affidavits, Law didn't have to cite everything he had written in his journal in the previous six months. The schism between the Smiths and the Expositor dissenters was a matter of record, known to the parties involved. Law didn't write his journal for the benefit of some loony bird conspiracy theorist questioning its validity 180 years later. He wrote his experiences, thoughts, and feelings as they related in importance to his life at the time. "And the fact that, although this journal was clearly intended for an audience, he didn't use any of it in the entire newspaper he published, and wrote mostly on his own. Please explain all of those things." Your statement that Law "clearly intended it for an audience" is nothing more than your opinion based on zero facts. Over the last eight months, you have stated numerous opinions about many different issues, based on zero facts, and rather because that's how you want the history to be in your zealous mind. Such as your nutty opinion that "William Clayton had an agenda to frame Joseph" or "Brigham Young brought in a ringer to impersonate Joseph to intimidate Martha Brotherton into polygamy." But overarching all of this is the fact that Law's journal entries reflect what we know was happening at the time from other sources. Your agenda here is to discredit Law's character, but you ignore how faithful and loyal he was to Smith *before* he learned the truth about polygamy. From the Lyndon Cook article: "From 1840 through 1843 william made his home available for church meetings of all kinds and during approximately the same time period he filled regular preaching assignments at nauvoo and in lee county iowa territory. The first presidency counselor defended joseph smiths character in 1842 by issuing public statements condemning john C. bennetts licentious conduct at nauvoo, and later that same year september november william made a second mission to the eastern states to preach the gospel, regulate church affairs and counter bennett's allegations of immoral conduct on the part of the prophet. "With eight others law received the ancient endowment from joseph smith in may 1842 and continued to meet in private councils with the prophet until january 1844. William aidedjoseph aided joseph smith immeasurably during the latter's hiding from law enforcement officers during august through december 1842 and both law brothers extended moral and financial support to the prophet during his trial in springfield illinois in january 1843." So your attempt to paint Law as an overall horrible person and secret enemy of Joseph Smith is refuted by an actual legitimate historian. Law defended Smith against Bennett's accusations *before* Hyrum admitted polygamy to the Nauvoo High Council, and *before* Joseph admitted polygamy personally to Law. Law explained his change of opinion re: Joseph in his 1887 interview: “In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?” “Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother.” Your attempt to discredit Law's narrative is further dashed by his son Richard's remarks about those events, as copied in the 1982 Lyndon Cook article which you apparently recently discovered: "William's son said his father with his arms around the neck of the prophet was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage william pleaded for this with joseph with tears streaming from his eyes the prophet was also in tears but he informed william that he could not withdraw the doctrine for god had commanded him to teach it and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment." So you see Michelle, what's happening here is that you are playing a losing game of whack-a-mole. Every time you try to discredit people who spoke or wrote that Joseph started polygamy, you are faced with numerous other moles popping up saying the same thing. Also, I don't suppose you noted this from Lyndon Cook's article: "The trial of excommunication 18 april 1844 involved thirty two male members joseph smith hyrum smith and sidney rigdon were conspicuously absent and while church bishop newel K whitney did participate in the trial it was brigham young president of the twelve apostles who presided." You have asserted that Brigham Young was the grand conspirator behind polygamy, against Joseph's teachings and without his knowledge; but here's that horrible (in your mind) Brigham presiding over the church court in which the men who accused Joseph of polygamy were excommunicated in absentia. So obviously, Brigham Young was supporting and defending Joseph Smith as of April 18, 1844. That is the opposite of your nonsensical view of Brigham.
Has your church contacted you to confirm your research yet? Will you ever be considered one of their experts? Are you afraid they may have people "monitoring" you?
For those who love you and your presentations, please do not cater to the critics. I heard that Joseph voted against the destruction of the Expositor. Either way the conspirators would have killed Joseph and mobbed the people. I really care about learning this. It would help if you put the pages on screen so we can read along.
Great work. Loved the sources especially the William Law letters to the newspaper. Sorry you have to put up with so many trolls comments when they do not even watch. The exmos hate what you are doing.
@@joshua.snyder I think there will be more and more like her in the church, as the church unites or has already united with WEF, UN and the whore of all the earth. How sad to see the church I have loved and worked in for so many years be destroyed. The seeds of destruction were laid even before Joseph was murdered. All the way back in Kirkland and into Missouri great big elders worked at removing Joseph and making the church in their own image. I know Joseph did not practice polygamy but Brigham did. Brigham said he received the doctrine and not Joseph. Why the LDS scholars have to teach that Joseph was a liar and terrible man to protect Brigham is beyond me unless you are trying to destroy what is left of the restauration. The LDS scholars do more damage to testimony than the exmos because members trust them. So if they say that Joseph married a 14 year old, the members believe this is true. It is not. It causes alarm and shakes members so they doubt the prophet Joseph and then the Book of Mormon. Then they start listening to exmos because they want to know more about these issues. Yet the issues are all from Brigham Young. You notice the exmo's and LDS scholars rarely criticize Brigham, only Joseph. That is called marring. Then they say Joseph was a liar about where the Lamanites lived. Joseph Smith said in the United States. The so intelligent LDS scholars say Mexico. Then Joseph says he used an Urim and Thummin to translate the plates. The scholars say he lied and that he used a stone in a hat. We have so many Sherem's as LDS scholars that lead the sheep right to the Nehor's and Korihors. What a disaster. So if Michelle tried to open peoples eyes up to the words of Joseph and his true beliefs about polygamy using facts I find it hard to say she is in apostacy. I personally see Brian Hales, Bateman, Book of Mormon Central and BYU in apostacy. Not apostacy from Brigham but from Joseph Smith and God.
Thanks, Michelle, great presentation. The Lord knew of these things well before they happened. He talks of "secret chambers" going on in 1831 and would continue to this day who would seek to destroy the Prophet Joseph Smith's reputation and perpetuate the lies that he started polygamy when he didn't. The prophet Joseph had a forgiving nature, he hoped people would change and repent of their immorality, lies, and deceptions. Many as you brought up who were friends later turned on him and sought his destruction. .Revelation was given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Fayette, New York, on January 2, 1831. HC 1:140-143. 13 "And now I show unto you a mystery, a thing which is had in secret chambers, to bring to pass even your destruction in process of time, and ye knew it not;" 24 "And let every man esteem his brother as himself, and practise virtue and holiness before me. 25 And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself. 26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there-and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just? 27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine. 28 And again, I say unto you that the enemy in the secret chambers seeketh your lives. (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 38:12 - 28)
And yet everything in the Expositor checks out and rings true. There really was not a Temple. Multiple people testify to the propositions, and the destruction of character of all who say no to Joseph. The salacious things said about the Laws come from the Smiths. All the crazy claims in the Expositor will become official Church doctrine, or as the Expositor says already were. I hope it is understood Bennet is long gone, leaving 2 years earlier and yet Bennet knows D&C 132 when he is in Nauvoo (1841)
At the 1:00:08 mark I think you make a statement that I think is so true: people who trust Joseph Smith as a reliable witness will interpret the data so differently from people who do not. I think there is conjecture and implication imposed on both sides of the argument. Personally, I believe Joseph was not honest based on a wide investigation of his actions, so I interpret your "data" differently than you do. As far as I can tell you have laid out a circumstantial case that William Law was a "bad" guy. None of which necessarily means that, in the end, he "lied" about Joseph's polygamy. He could have hated Joseph, been a vile and wicked man and still have told the truth. We just don't know. Also, I think the picture you paint of the Laws and Higbees could be applied to Joseph also. Immorality, dishonesty ... Joseph himself said that he was s sinful person. I await real hard evidence Joseph did not practice polygamy, but being an hour in, and not hearing any so far, I doubt is will be forthcoming. But I'll keep listening.
William and Jane Law along with his brother, Fosters, Higbee's, Cowles and 200 LDS men signed a blood oath to kill Joseph. That was how many of the members viewed Joseph and his message. They wanted someone else. So Joseph Smith and the Lord's message were destroyed. William Law was a murderer and worse a master mahan who had joy in his craft for a season. Take his word from the toilet if you want. Evil trees do not give good fruit, never. His testimony counts and less than zero if one could get there.
You have two groups, those who claimed Joseph practiced polygamy and those who claimed he did not. It is impossible to determine which group is telling the truth without looking at the character and motives of the people involved. Anyone can make accusations, that doesn't make them true. When John C. Bennett was exposed for being the despicable man he was and run out of Nauvoo, he set out to destroy Joseph by basically accusing Joseph of everything he himself did. Chauncey Higbee was Bennett's cohort so it isn't at all surprising that after being exposed he would align himself with the Expositor gang, who had been excommunicated and exposed, and resort to the same tactics. These men hated Joseph so much they conspired to kill him but you think they can't resort to lying about or falsely accusing him? Joseph was a sinner, but he clarified they weren't grave sins. He also stated that he was innocent of the accusations regarding polygamy being made against him and that he could prove those making the accusations perjurers. He never got that chance. But he certainly wasn't afraid. Joseph sued Chauncey for slander and defamation of character which you don't risk doing if you are trying not be exposed.
@@freethinker1026 I see you are truly a Free Thinker. Thanks, your comment is exactly correct. He would not expose these men if he were doing the same thing. I know you are aware he spoke to William Marks and wanted to bring the leading men, I assume Brigham and others of the 12 before the stake high council for polygamy. As you said he never got the chance. Lucifer started sowing tares among the wheat way back in Kirkland. Joseph was deceived as he said to William Marks, but I believe the Lord allowed it for various reasons, one of which was to expose Lucifer, allowing the saints to chose who they would follow. They rejected Joseph and God and so got another system. Isaiah knew this would happen as did Nephi and Moroni. So we wait for the purge that is at our doors, the Assyrian, the briars and thorns. Once we are humbled and repent then the Lord the second time can recover those that stand with him in and out of the church by sending his ensign or mighty servant. So we wait and try to warn as many as we can. I really appreciate your comment.
@@freethinker1026 I understand what you are explaining. Bennett, Laws and Higbees were horrible people and they hated Joseph. I get that. But I can take your sentence and reverse it and it is just as true: "Anyone can make accusations, that doesn't make them FALSE." Yeah, I think it is a given, they were pissed off at Joseph and they did immature things. So did Joseph! (If you told people in your WARD that a ward member had gonorreah, do you feel that is an action of a loving altruistic martyr?) In my life I have yet to see a heated disagreement between two parties where there is not some truth on both sides. That is why a disagreement arises. In your response above you easily accept Joseph's statement "he clarified they weren't grave sins." I look at Joseph's motives and there are a myriad of reasons why he might lie about that. Also, Joseph held a strong grip on the culture and adherents to the faith in Nauvoo. Your assertion the Joseph would never sue "Chauncey for slander and defamation of character" is just your opinion. I believe Joseph's hold over the people in Nauvoo would lessen his concern that such an action could backfire. You asked: "These men hated Joseph so much they conspired to kill him but you think they can't resort to lying about or falsely accusing him?" Of course they could have lied. But as I look at the preponderance of evidence for Joseph's polygamy, I don't think they did lie. However, I KNOW Joseph lied about many things. But that is a whole other can of worms that we will not agree on. So, please accept this in a spirit of just disagreement, not malice. If you have real evidence, I would love to see it, but, for me, this episode has been full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing.
@@stuartjensen2004 Of course either party could lie. And both said things against each other. The difference I see is that we have evidence that the Expositor clan was plotting to kill Joseph prior to printing what they said about him. Whereas Joseph was talking about them in an attempt to defend himself by showing their characters. The things with Chauncey, had come to light years earlier, it's not like Joseph couldn't wait to make his business public. And yes if I was being falsely accused by someone in my ward and I knew something about them that would put their credibility into question I would absolutely bring it up in an attempt to defend myself. I didn't say Joseph would never sue Chauncey I said you don't take that risk if you are trying to hide something. I'm not sure what hold you think Joseph had over the people but it certainly wasn't a strong hold considering how many people turned on him for far less things than polygamy. He would have to be a fool to have that much confidence at that point. I didn't readily accept Joseph's claim that they weren't grave sins. I simply added that part of the statement, that you conveniently left out, which left out can lead people to think he was confessing something bigger than he was. Your preponderance of evidence comes decades later and is filled with serious credibility issues. It also ignores all the evidence both contemporaneous and later to the contrary
Motive problematic motive, that story also supports the D&C 132 as Joseph and Joseph alone has the keys, thus the only path for any women to the after life is through Joseph and Joseph alone. Alexander is explaining that all women however Mrs Law in this case can only go to the higher heaven through Joseph Smith. This supports Joseph can do as he please with any woman because the woman benefits more. It clearly explains the problem with any other man having sex outside marriage as they cant pay the girl with celestial reward.
Let me add something important about the presentation 3 minutes (~46mins) before that something else happens. The presenter gladly accepts a retro story, that is the presenter constantly claiming all Joseph Smith accusations are retro and thus unfair. However it is worse as Mr Law claims that is a standard technique of the Smith's to falsely lets use his words " In return for this scorn, he generally managed to blacken their reputations", so the presentation shows the practice. If Hyrum did in fact smear unjustly both Laws then it all makes sense. If false smears cause problems for the Laws it kind of explains all.
I haven't dug into that specific source enough to fully understand either Neibar or his journal. It is certainly interesting. I have some thought I could speculate, but since i haven't studied it I don't know if that would be worth much. My first suspicion is that this might have been a later creation, but we would need to study out the provenance of this journal to see if that is possible. If it was found since or after Mark Hoffmann, for example... But, like I said, I haven't done that work, so I don't know. If Neibar had at least provided a day, or even rough time, that this happened, so we could see if it were possible, or if he told us how he heard these things, so we could trace if that were possible, it would help a lot. (A pattern I seem to see in forgeries, like Law's diary is to leave things obscure -- claim them but never nail anything down.) What I know is that this could NOT have happened on May 24, 1844. And I haven't yet found a way to make any sense of it happening at any point. But I'm definitely open to learning more.
This is the first I heard there was a plan to kill the entire smith family. It makes sense. In my growing up years it made me wonder why whoever killed Joseph and Hyrum stopped at that point. I would think that if someone was that motivated, they would continue the rampage. Many of the influential in the church had left the church or been excommunicated so maybe they were not a target at that point. Does anyone know if there were attempts made on the lives of others who were influential within the church?
Samuel Smith died July 30th, 1844, and is sometimes called the 3rd martyr. They say he died of injuries from riding hard to Carthage to help his brothers, but others say he was poisoned.
Thanks for contributing, I had wondered. It always raised red flags with me. I can't relate to wanting to kill. I've been angry of course and lost my temper more times than I can even begin to count but can't get my mind around the concept of desiring to eliminate a human. But think for a minute, to catch a fox think like a fox. If I was outside the church and felt threatened or angry enough to want to destroy it by decapitation at its head then going after Joseph Smith would be the logical move. However I would know he would soon be replaced. Perhaps whoever did it thought Hyrum would be a shoe in for that. But to think like a fox for a minute, I would think to go after the rising stars in the movement like the Kimballs, Snows, Whitmer, Youngs (Brigham had a brother) or other Influential families. If I was within the church and felt threatened or angry enough to commit such a act, I would come to the same conclusion Unless I had an agenda. Is this the same thoughts others have when trying to think like a fox?
There's a book called Power vs Force by David R. Hawkins that describes a method for determining truth directly from the light of Christ (consciousness). It also shows the original purpose for which kings/wise men were to carry a heavy scepter/staff. Works only for integrous people for integrous purposes. I imagine it would help you especially as you attempt to sift through all these lies.
That's the thing about the method described in the books of David R. Hawkins. There's a calibrated logarithmic scale from 1 - 1000 (for this world) and beyond this world up to infinity (God). Using the method you can get an average calibrated level for each historical record. Below 200 it's a fake. The higher above 200, the more truth it has. And you can take it as far as you want, chapter by chapter, line by line, and get a number for each. For example polygamy is at 145, while monogamy is at 255. Joseph Smith was 510. Jesus Christ was 1000.
The Jews were expecting a king in this physical world. Jesus taught them something else: "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." --Luke 17:20-21 We should probably be wary of making the same mistake when expecting our David: "Although David was a king he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fulness of the Priesthood; and the priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days raised up out of his lineage" --Joseph Smith What does it mean to "obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fulness of the Priesthood"? Does "kingdom of David" really mean a physical kingdom? Maybe this David already came, obtained his promised blessings, delivered his teachings, and we didn't even know. Did we make the same mistake as the Jews?
I love how you bash on William Law and John C Bennett. Considering they were both in the first presidency and knew Joseph firsthand and way better than you do. It would be like having Dallin and Henry say Rusty is stealing money. Either Joseph with a complete jerk to everyone he met or the people that knew him best wanted nothing to do with him. His lack of discernment is mind-boggling
Why don't you simply provide a link to the actual newspaper. It certainly exists I noticed that you blah blah blah and don't even talk about what was in it. All you have to do is simply read it
Let's do a little thought experiment. If your two best friends and closest confidants came to me and told me that you were having an affair on your husband and introduced me to your lovers. Would I really trust your denials?
Joseph and Hyrum paraphrased a portion of the July 12, 1843 revelation in the Nauvoo neighbor when people were accusing them of preaching plural marriage. Why did they not just publish the revelation to show everyone that that’s not what it was about? They never published the revelation or included it in the newest edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Why do you think they were hiding it?
How many times was the word "polygamy" or phrase "plural marriage" mentioned, spoken, written BEFORE Joseph & Hyrum died? WHERE did that come from? Joseph Smith was a control freak? How could polygamy occur and NOT have him take action, against those who were leaders in The Church, practicing it, against his, THE PROPHET'S DIRECTION? Joseph, if he was the person you claim he was, would have sniffed out and snuffed out ANYONE practicing polygamy.........BUT....... HE DIDN'T. Obviously this is a case of "Where there is smoke there is fire." So much smoke around Joseph engaged in plural marriage.
I'm not sure I understand that point of this question, but the term polygamy was used a lot during Joseph's lifetime -- and he always, every single time, denied and condemned it. Celestial plural marriage is a term the polygamists made up after Joseph's death so they could pretend that Joseph's many denials of polygamy by any name didn't apply to their polygamy. The polygamists busily spread lies that Joseph supported what they were doing, and every time those claims made it back to Joseph or Hyrum they did everything in their power to combat those lies. They constantly did everything they could to try to find and root out polygamy in the church.
I promise this will be my last post here. I am sorry but the irony is too great to stop my typing. Michelle, did you really write this little tid bit: " ...to explain that when people just call names, or attribute motives, it shuts down conversation."? All you have done in the entire episode is "attribute motives" to "wicked" people who write "anti-mormon" statements/literature. I am called a "troll". Hmmm, calling names, attributing motives anyone?
Honest truth seekers, free thinkers, might not want to use all encompassing language like, "You can't believe a word this guy says." This is obviously a "figure of speech" but it lessens your credibility.
I thought I alluded to this, but maybe it was in another episode. Joseph didn't seem to choose these men because of their spiritual gifts. He seemed to look at his first presidency more like a president looks at his vice president and cabinet. He chose men who were leaders of large groups of the saints and who had ability and influence. This was the case with Sydney Rigdon, who was the pastor of the huge congregation that all joined the church and gathered with the Saints. Bennett was extremely impressive (at first) everywhere he went -- until his narcissistic psychopathy caught up with him. He was almost single-handedly responsible for getting the Nauvoo city charter passed. William Law was a similar case. He was a respected leader among the large group of Canadian saints that gathered, and, as covered in this episode, he had means and quickly became more and more wealthy and influential. In many ways he was a logical choice. It is unfortunate for sure. In the Doctrine and Covenants God basically tells Joseph that he wasn't given the ability to be a very good judge of character -- he was actually too forgiving and long-suffering, and projected his goodness and sincerity onto others, which is something I can relate to. These can be hard lessons to learn. Good people don't naturally imagine that other people aren't like them -- it takes a lot to teach them that people can be so terrible.
@@MichelleBStone This means Smith exhibited poor judgment in his top councillors. Imagine if Smith had been killed earlier; then either Bennett or Law could have become the church president. Yikes. Another question: How do polygamy deniers explain the content in the Expositor that is similar to 132?
Well, my opinion is the episode starts very well and actually ends great around 1hr:50 however there are a bunch of contradictory interjections which maybe you can clarify? The summation sounds like Joseph Smith who actually has been living on the lam as a jail escapee who has charges in both states (Illinois & Missouri) needs the special city charter which allows Joseph to always be found innocent in the city and protected by armed guards in the city, and protected by a no extradition while in the city (self-proclaimed right which doesn't actually have a legal base). That without that self-proclaimed authority in Nauvoo Joseph would be tried in both states? So for example one of many, many contradictions is : 1) if Joseph is being protected by the charter why is he living on the Lam and not in Nauvoo? 2) If the plan to murder, rape, and exterminate the Mormons already exists then Expositor would mean nothing or actually help the Smiths, since it would publicly pre-warn the ills thus making the "bad peoples" job harder, again why would people sign their name to a public plan to murder since they already know it is coming? This would be self-incrimination. 3) If the Nauvoo Charter was so critical to Mormons safety, not Joseph but Mormons, you couldn't give away the Expositor. It would be pointless for Mormons to propose to other Mormons that they all give up their only protection. 4)Polygamy and D&C 132 verses D&C 101 with celestial marriages problem again: It is said that the rejection of the Smith girl's marriage proposal is a major cause, and the attempted plural wifery of a married woman was another major factor festering the existing money issues, however that is contradictory. Since D&C 101 should be in place there is no base for these problems, under D&C 101 it is one wife only. And any celestial stuff can only occur via Joseph and doesn't matter until after death. However if D&C 132 was in practice in which case it was Joseph and Joseph alone who could make those marriages happen so why were these Mormons acting in accordance with D&C 132 on these female issues? Why did these men need action from Joseph's D&C 132 authority? Have we not discussed Governor Ford's letter which address this? Please don't forget the whole Plural Gods, man god thing as it is critical in D&C 132 and the Expositor Hang in there you have a job and half on this Expositor and take all the time you need.
I want to post something else which does and does not fit this episode but is a major flaw in this conspiracy theory Joseph Smith dies on June 27, 1844, okay so that tells me the conspirators have to seize power on June 27, 1844. Now that shooting occurs at night so June 28, 1844 is the day to cement the new authority over all the Church and its members and stamp out any false claims to authority, so where is it? It is show time but who shows up? Who stood up and took control? Where are these key players: Brigham Young?, William Law?, Wilson Law?, Francis M. Higbee?, Chauncey L. Higbee?, Robert Foster?, Charles Foster?, Charles Ivins ? , Sylvester Emmons,? If they murder to get this opportunity where are they? We don't need a quick answer, it does seem this mob of Mormon killed Joseph for his actions and not his position or authority. Honestly nothing was gained from the past when Joseph died, but the future changed, not another dollar, not another daughter, not another wife, not another lie.
@@whatsup3270 They don't have to seize power immediately, they simply have to keep anyone else from doing so until they are ready. It's preposterous to think that any of the Expositor clan could take control of the church as they had all been excommunicated and the members believed they had a role in Joseph's death, they were not trusted. The Expositor clan didn't want Joseph dead to take his place, it was for revenge. And William Law had already started his own church of which they were all members. Brigham Young was out of town with the majority of the 12. And when Sidney Rigdon was the first to arrive in Nauvoo and made claim to be the successor Pratt, Richards, Taylor and George A. Smith tried to hold him off until the rest of the 12 returned. They couldn't get him to delay the meeting but Brigham miraculously showed up in time for it. June 27 to Aug. 8 is not a long time to wait to seize power and had Brigham shown up in Nauvoo on the 28 of July, or any sooner than he did, it would have raised suspicion.
From the affidavits in the Nauvoo Expositor I think it’s unquestionable that D&C 132 obviously existed at that time. I know you’re trying to give context and discredit William Law, but anyway look at him I don’t think there’s anyway that you can say that D&C 132 did not exist when they wrote those affidavits.
There were members of the church who were practicing polygamy at the time those affidavits were made and it is very possible that the phrases found in the affidavits were used to convince women to enter into these marriages. That does not equate to a revelation existing or to it being associated with Joseph. Both Joseph and Hyrum testified before the City Council regarding the revelation that was discussed in the high council and those who had been present confirmed that it was not what the Expositor claimed it to be. Not only that but as Michelle mentions Chauncey Higbee had been engaged in the same activity as Bennett and had already attributed his own words to Joseph so it is not far fetched to believe he and his friends,,, who had an axe to grind against Joseph, would do so again in the expositor.
That was an excellent summary of the issues you made in the first 5 minutes. However, then you had 2 hours of information largely irrelevant to the main issue. That main issue is: why are all 3 of the affadavits in the Expositor have what are exact or nearly exact quotes from Section 132, if you do not believe Joseph Smith authored Section 132? The only explanation is that 1. JS was the author of Sec 132 or 2. One of the 3 affiants fabricated Section 132. The latter must be your argument, so can you find any evidence that this is true?
I understand your comment. It was hard to decide what to address first because there is so much misinformation to address and so much information to cover. I think this information is highly relevant. The first misconception to this is that William Law was an extremely faithful, honest man who only turned on Joseph because of polygamy, and that polygamy was the reason for the Nauvoo Expositor, and the reason for its destruction. Now that you understand that none of that is true it is easy to dismiss its importance, but it sets context for what we will cover next. I tried to clearly explain this. And I do not at all agree with your two possible options. I think you will see that even William Law disproves your assumptions. There is still a ton of work, but I will get it done as quickly as I can.
@@MichelleBStone I think it was good to get this needed background on William Law. It paints a very different picture of him. I'm looking forward to the explanations on those important questions.
@@MichelleBStone D&C 124:91 "And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right; 97 Let my servant William Law also receive the keys by which he may ask and receive blessings; let him be humble before me, and be without guile, and he shall receive of my Spirit, even the Comforter, which shall manifest unto him the truth of all things, and shall give him, in the very hour, what he shall say. 98 And these signs shall follow him-he shall heal the sick, he shall cast out devils, and shall be delivered from those who would administer unto him deadly poison; 99 And he shall be led in paths where the poisonous serpent cannot lay hold upon his heel, and he shall mount up in the imagination of his thoughts as upon eagles’ wings. 100 And what if I will that he should raise the dead, let him not withhold his voice. 101 Therefore, let my servant William cry aloud and spare not, with joy and rejoicing, and with hosannas to him that sitteth upon the throne forever and ever, saith the Lord your God." Gee, you'd think that the god of Mormonism would have been a little more careful in choosing the men whom he instructed Joseph Smith to place in the highest leadership positions in his one true restored church.
" That main issue is: why are all 3 of the affadavits in the Expositor have what are exact or nearly exact quotes from Section 132, if you do not believe Joseph Smith authored Section 132? " Michelle Stone believes that Joseph Smith issued a revelation which authorized only monogamous eternal marriages, and that Brigham Young somehow got ahold of a copy and altered it to include the portions about plural marriage. The historical evidence shows that Smith dictated the revelation to his secretary William Clayton on July 12, 1843. One month later, on August 12, 1843, Hyrum Smith read the revelation before the Nauvoo High Council to seek their vote to sustain the revelation as church doctrine. Meaning: the revelation did not exist on paper until then. Before that, the principles of plural marriage had only been shared verbally with a couple of dozen of Joseph Smith's most loyal insiders. A seventeen year old convert named Martha Brotherton, who had just arrived in Nauvoo from England in June 1842, stated that she had only been in the city for three weeks when Heber C. Kimball asked her to go to Joseph Smith's store with him. Upon arriving, Martha related this event: "In this office were two men writing, one of whom, William Clayton, I had seen in England; the other I did not know. Young came in, and seated himself before me, and asked where Kimball was. I said he had gone out. He said it was all right. Soon after, Joseph came in, and spoke to one of the clerks, and then went up stairs, followed by Young. "Immediately after, Kimball came in. “Now, Martha,” said he, “the Prophet has come; come up stairs.” I went, and we found Young and the Prophet alone. I was introduced to the Prophet by Young. Joseph offered me his seat, and, to my astonishment, the moment I was seated, Joseph and Kimball walked out of the room, and left me with Young, who arose, locked the door, closed the window, and drew the curtain... “said he, “brother Joseph has had a revelation from God [not yet written down] that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days, and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me, I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come, and brother Joseph will marry us here to-day, and you can go home this evening, and your parents will not know any thing about it.” End quote. So, Martha Brotherton's account tells us that Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and William Clayton were already schooled in the principles of plural marriage as taught to them by Joseph Smith in July, 1842. Her phrase "it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham" makes it perfectly clear that what Young, Kimball, and Clayton had been taught, and what Young repeated to Martha, included the same principles and the same verbiage which Joseph Smith formally dictated to Clayton a year later. So, this is just one of many published documents which completely demolishes Michelle's Stone's ridiculous theory that Brigham Young altered Smith's revelation to include the portions about plural marriage at some point after Smith issued his revelation. Obviously, Martha Brotherton could not have quoted Brigham Young stating that specific verbiage about having two wives in June 1842, if the "real" revelation (according to Michelle Stone's wild theory) did not even exist until July 1843. So, verbiage in Martha Brotherton's July 1842 affidavit corroborates the details of the Nauvoo Expositor affidavits filed in May 1844. And one of those affidavits, of Nauvoo High Councilor Austin Cowles, who was in that August 12, 1843 High Council meeting in which Hyrum Smith presented the revelation, is corroborated by those of six other men who were present in that meeting. ALL of those men testified that the document which Hyrum read is the same text as D&C 132 today. So, Michelle's attempt to discredit William Law's and Austin Cowles' affidavits by attacking their character and motives is refuted by the fact that numerous other eyewitness participants swore legal affidavits which stated the same thing that Law and Cowles did. Unfortunately, I have yet to see that Michelle is able to understand how and why these facts refute her stance that Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith did not teach or practice polygamy.
Basically you are saying that even though william and joseph are doing the same things (joseph even more really) when william does it it’s bad and when joseph does it it’s good. Oh Michelle, where were you when joseph needed you?
William Law sounds like an opportunist similar to Joseph Smith (see D&C 124). But the character of the Expositor authors is not relevant to whether the Expositor documents that D&C 132 (or a similar document) existed before Joseph's death.
Yes, I agree that the character of Joseph Smith's enemies is entirely secondary to the core issue. Either the affiants are quoting from a document created by Joseph Smith (or Hyrum Smith), or one of them fabricated Sec 132 (in which case they would have to create the document, slip it to Hyrum, and convince him it was from Joseph--this does not seem likely).
@@lrsvalentine I'm what way? Before watching you were certain that William Law was a very good guy who only started the Nauvoo Expositor because of Polygamy. Do you still claim that?
@lrsvalentine I find people like you interesting. Very. And, honestly, I mean no offense here, at all! But, wallowing in a self-constructed misery. To come and watch a video of a system and man you detest for 2.5< hours and then to take the time to negatively engage in the topic takes a special kind of mental and emotional hell--as if invested in a labor that would be as if the harder you work the more people will believe--perhaps? Here is what I think as a forensics social scientist. You like misery but it is all you know because you do not understand happiness. I would bet you are miserable in your daily routine and feel it much the same as you do about your appearance, inward thinking, and you know, your sexual satisfaction is lacking. Do you have to take yourself to the extreme sexually to gain pleasure? I really do not mean offense--in all my neo-Freudianism. On that unhappy index, could it be you were damaged or traumatized, or hurt/betrayed in such a way as to draw energy from this sort of engagement? I am just enamored with negative behaviors in people who dwell in that realm? How do they enjoy their life on this planet and take the time to indulge in negative enjoyment? I am sure you are in the Dehlin camp. Have you not noticed the unhappy gaze in him, Reel, RFM, etc.? I want to be happy and want others to be happy, like you! I do! I want people to live a full life of joy and engagement of full living. For you to come here--if I was your therapist I would seriously recommend you find a new outlet. This is junk food for your soul. You need to find serious emotional nourishment! I wish I could help you do that. So let me ask, take no offense, Have you been black-pilled in someway that hurt you and put you in this nihilistic realm of emotion and engagement? I would love to hear your story. I mean that.
No, Joseph was only the mayor, the head of the Nauvoo Legion, the Prophet Seer & Revelator to the Church, the holder of nearly all the property in Nauvoo, why would you think any of HIS motives were for personal gain? Don't you understand that the purpose of this channel is to uphold the virtue of Joseph Smith at all costs?
@@KSASTAMPS You are right. But even that is funny. If Brigham ran with polygamy, amen to Bro Brigham's priesthood authority. Or so says Joe's D&C. Then Michelle et al aren't even really baptized.
So the guy who tried to skirt banking regulation laws with the anti banking bank wasn't involved in counterfeiting in any way?😂😂😂. Wow, poor Joe didn't know anything that was going on in Nauvoo. It's almost as if he weren't a prophet.
Joseph H. Jackson was a close aide to Joseph Smith for the last 20 months of his life. Shortly before Smith's arrest, Jackson left Nauvoo and wrote his account of his dealings with Smith and other top church leaders, which included this: "But to return to the Bogus establishment. The first attempts at Bogus making were rather rough; but in October, Messrs. Barton and Eaton, came on from Buffalo, having been sent by one of Joe’s emissaries, and brought with them a splendid press and all the necessary tools and materials for operation. The press was put up in the south east room, up stairs, of the house formerly occupied by Joe, being the same room where the holy order had previously met. The business was then rushed ahead in good earnest, and an excellent specimen of base coin produced. Soon the city was flooded with this money and a report was put in circulation that Bogus manufactures were at work in the city. Joe had given out that the room occupied by the press was rented to Messrs. Barton and Eaton, who were mechanics, and were making drafts for the machinery, of a factory which they contemplated erecting. The press continued to run until they had manufactured about $350,000. The intention was to keep the press running and purchase a large amount of stock, but being forced to move it, by a circumstance which I shall presently relate, Joe concluded to wait until spring when the large emigration which was expected would afford a better chance to operate. About half of the money manufactured was put in circulation in Hancock county, and the balance sent east, or passed off to transient persons. All the twelve Apostles except Orson Pratt and Eber C. Kimball, were engaged in this business, and frequently Visited the room where the press was, and took turns in working it. Hyrum, at the time the press was in operation had a lame knee and could not get out of the house, but Joe and myself frequently visited him and discussed measures for raising the wind to purchase more stock. Joe, told me that in Ohio, he, Dr. Boynton, Lyman Wight, Oliver Cowdry and Hyrum, were engaged with others in a Bogus establishment on Licking Creek, but that their operations were cut short by the bursting of the Kirtland Bank. While the press was suspended in its operations, a man by the name of Brown, came to Nauvoo, and sold to Joe a quantity of counterfeit ten dollar Yates County bills, for twenty dollars per hundred. Joe and Hyrum have been frequently seen with their hands full of these bills, by many persons in Nauvoo, and by them the whole country was flooded. There is not a merchant in the city but krows this fact and also that there has been a large quantity of Bogus in circulation. The first who detected the counterfeit paper money, were Hpldridge, Gilman, & Co., of the New York Store. The large amount of spurious money afloat, caused a great excitement in the city, and it became a common talk amongst the most wealthy class, who were not afraid to speak their minds. The agitation of the subject, very much offended His Holiness, and he to save himself, railed out in his characteristic style, and pronounced all the curses of God on the heads of these persons. who were in fact the most substantial men in the city: such as the two Laws, Dr. Foster, F. M. Foster, C. L. Higbee and Mr. Cole. These men, he accused of being guilty of all kinds of crime, especially of counterfeiting. This was all done to kill their influence, and in the hope that by raising the cry "stop thief," he would turn suspicion from himself."
@@six1nyne I'm glad that you suggested that source. I suggest that everyone here read the historical documentation I posted in the comments section of that video.
@@randyjordan5521 You always pick the worst horses. Jackson tried to marry Hyrum's daughter and then asked Joseph for help. He got none. So Jackson swore to kill the whole Smith family. Keep looking under every rock to find another loser to love.
Have you ever asked how Joseph smith was financially independent? You insinuate that wealth was more important than spiritual dedication and yet Smith used other men’s wealth to build his kingdom. His miraculous revelations required others to provide for his family and Emma suffered considerably always having to live with other families, take in boarders, and try to bring in an income. You claim to want to read WOMANS stories but you ignore the woman’s voices that chide your false prophet!
What a bizarrely internally inconsistent comment. Joseph was independently wealthy and required others to provide for his family, but Emma was homeless and impoverished? You'll need to help me understand what you are actually trying to say. You do realized that when Joseph was killed he was tens of thousands of dollards in debt, because of his efforts to built this community and provide for all the people, right? You bring up Emma, and bring up the concern about ignoring women's voices, but you completely ignore Emma's voice -- the most important feminine voice in this entire story. I have no idea where you are coming from, but at this point your thinking seems to be very fuzzy.
@@Kristy_not_KristineNope. He was a man easily duped then. One without the spirit of discernment. The simplest explanation really is birds of a feather.
In regard to the "birds of a feather" comment, can you remind me of your perspective of why Joseph disciplined Bennett for his immorality? If they were partners in crime and seduction, why did they split up? I'm sure I've heard the answer, I'm just not remembering.
@@MichelleBStone Sure. The discipline was really for not keeping it (Joe's good ole principle of "celestial" marriage) secret. Simple enough. The convicted liar was always a liar.
@@lrsvalentine I would love to see your evidence for that. Do you have Joseph Smith on record saying that? Was that the issue in his trials? Was it recorded in any journals? Even William Clayton's? Did even John Bennett ever claim that? I would love to know what you rely on for your certainty of this claim.
@@lrsvalentine are you a relative? She just spent 2 hours laying out her case and providing links in the show notes so one can continue to look into the subject if so inclined, and you think you can dismiss it all with one or two sentences and no proof? lol :)
@@Kristy_not_KristineWeak sauce. Of course Joe, Hyrum, and the saints that went West tried to paint Law as a bad person. He exposed them. Michelle still hasn't shown how Law and others knew about Section 132 when Joe was alive. Rather, she just flings mud.
@@Kristy_not_Kristine Which two sentences are you referring to? Should I guess the ones where members are threatening J Smith to his face? Because those sentences would counter the long held "no contemporaneous evidence" claims.
Thanks for laying out the economic and sociological aspects of Nauvoo, and most importantly, the organized underground criminal network. I rarely see that it’s discussed anywhere and it’s impossible to get a good understanding of the history without being aware such important aspects. I really appreciate you taking the time to research and discuss it. Great job! 😊
Thank you again, Mary! I appreciate it so much!
Joseph created a cesspool of power, corruption, deception, and predation. That is why he died.
A good reminder that it was pretty wild back in those days.
It was such a different world! Illinois was the wild west!
You are fabulous! Keep holding their feet to the 🔥!
Excellent episode! I think this one is my favorite so far. You do good research. As I have said before I am so excited for your one on the temple.
I'm so sorry it keeps getting pushed back! It's going to be a little while yet before I can get back into that research, but I promise to get there ASAP.
You’re amazing 🤩 You’re such a go-getter. It’s so refreshing to see other truth seekers who only want to know the truth, no matter the cost.
I've never understood the whole Expositor mess. Thank you so much for all this information! You are amazing! (Seriously)
I loved this episode! Thank you for your efforts to bring forth the truth that has been hidden for far too long. Those who love the truth and are willing to question what they thought was true that isn't will see through the lies. The hard-hearted and those who love and make lies won't. Keep on keeping on!!❤
Sure. Those who love the truth. Kokaubeam on dude. That's a real Egyptian word I'm told.😂😂😂
Another well documented video. Thanks for all the research you put into all your videos. I know it takes a lot of time but keep getting the truth out. I look forward to part 2! ❤
I'm amazed at your ability to study, and sift through so much information from all these sources. I love that you are such a big part of this movement. Thank you for all you are doing!
Praying for you, Michelle
Thank you ❤
This was so good! Thank you for all the time you put into these episodes!
This is a topic I haven't read about myself yet. But my mom said we are related to Chauncey Higbee (and Francis)! "They were sons of Judge Elias Higbee, brother of our ancestor. I'm glad that Elias died before Chauncey and Francis were involved in the Expositor and against Joseph Smith. 😔"
Excellent work.. you are a blessing. Thank you for sharing your research.. instead of sitting on the fence like a whole lot of others who claim to have all the evidence, research but don’t actually share it.:
This provides some interesting backstory. Thank you for your research. If Richards was the one that propositioned Foster's wife (1:39:00) that would explain why Richards and Taylor reportedly were so incessant about getting JSJr to sign the Expositor to destruction. This is a story told by William Smith a few decades after the fact but which he says he witnessed firsthand (about Richards and Taylor). None of the Elders involved could afford for the allegations of polygamy or spiritual wifery to come out and Richards had been seen by Foster himself. The WIkipedia article for the Nauvoo Expositor has a lot of inaccurate info. It accuses JSJr of all the things that were said by Foster but for which Foster never said JSJr was the perpetrator (thanks to Fawn Brodie).
I’m so glad you mentioned William Law’s nonexistent diary! No scholar has ever laid eyes on the original. I get so tired of seeing people quote it like it’s a valid source.
LDS historian Lyndon Cook obtained Law's journal in 1978 from his descendant, Leilani Law. Cook first referenced Law's journal in his1982 paper "William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter." Michelle Stone quoted from Cook's paper in this video.
If you have read the 1844 entries from Law's journal which I have posted on Michelle's videos numerous times over the last six months---and if you had the ability to make logical and rational conclusions about it---then you would deduce that no faked journal could have possibly given so much detail about those events which are corroborated from multiple independent sources.
@@randyjordan5521 Yep, I'm the one with motivated reasoning LOL
Randy, can you please see how ridiculous your comment is? Let me help, whoever created this "diary" would have had full access to all the other sources, so your assertion that the events being "corroborated from multiple independent sources" is proof that it is legit is not helpful. This shouldn't be so hard. Please provide evidence for your claim that Cook "obtained Law's journal" at all. If he "obtained" it, where is it? Why isn't it allowed to be seen and researched? Why would he keep it hidden? I think what you mean is he obtained the transcript -- which is exactly what I said. You base your entire narrative on this journal, so I'm not surprised you are so desperate to not see it invalidated, but you haven't even responded to Law himself claiming that Joseph NEVER propositioned Jane, which IS verified by his and his son's multiple vehement assertions, and the fact that in his newspaper, intentionally dedicated to smearing Joseph Smith, he didn't say anything about what would have been by far the most damning and enraging accusation he could possibly have against him. And the fact that, although this journal was clearly intended for an audience, he didn't use any of it in the entire newspaper he published, and wrote mostly on his own. Please explain all of those things.
Guys lets be fair about this subject, the far and away most likely and proper interpretation, is the daughter-in-law(?) typed up the oral history because the Law family wanted their side of the events to be told. We can never really know if anyone was propositioned, however it is more likely that the Law account is based in Hyrum intentionally falsely smearing both Mr and Mrs Law. That jives with Laws other accounts of the Smiths. That also explains why William Law doesn't want to rehash it later. Remember Gov Ford's letter accusations for and against a Smith when tried in Nauvoo guarantees a Smith win, thus Hyrum made the counter claims, take it to court and the Smiths will win, take it to council(s) and the Smiths will win. Had Hyrum's claims been truth the Laws would have been divorced, and Joseph would have "sealed" himself to Jane just to crush William.
@@MichelleBStone " Please provide evidence for your claim that Cook "obtained Law's journal" at all."
Cook detailed that in the article which you quoted. Maybe you should pay attention to what you're trying to talk about. As to why the original hasn't been seen, you'd have to talk to Law's descendants to learn that.
Law's journal entries have been quoted by numerous LDS historians since Cook first published them. So if you doubt its validity, you should take that up with them.
"the fact that in his newspaper, intentionally dedicated to smearing Joseph Smith, he didn't say anything about what would have been by far the most damning and enraging accusation he could possibly have against him."
All you're doing here is showing us that you are mentally unable to consider historical references in context of other sources or events. At the time the Expositor was published, polygamy had become an open secret in Nauvoo. Most of the anti-polygamy church leaders (Law, Cowles etc.) had been presented the revelation by Joseph or Hyrum personally. That had been an established fact since Hyrum had introduced the revelation to the Nauvoo High Council 10 months earlier.
The purpose of the Expositor affidavits and details of polygamy was to expose it to the general public, to counter Joseph's and Hyrum's repeated denials of it. The publishers' agenda was to force Smith to step down as church president, so those men could act as a caretaker committee to abolish polygamy, renounce Joseph's recent heretical doctrine of multiple gods, and his secret plot to establish a theocratic kingdom with him at its head. That's why Law & Co. formed a new church: it was a reform movement, much like the RLDS church was founded as a reform movement 16 years later.
That's why Law had Smith legally charged with polygamy and adultery: it's because Smith refused to admit to polygamy or to renounce it. Smith knew that if he was brought into court to face the charges, everybody who knew of his polygamous/adulterous practices would be called as witnesses, and he would lose his case, and he would be forced to resign as church president.
So, when Law & Co, published the Expositor and the affidavits, Law didn't have to cite everything he had written in his journal in the previous six months. The schism between the Smiths and the Expositor dissenters was a matter of record, known to the parties involved. Law didn't write his journal for the benefit of some loony bird conspiracy theorist questioning its validity 180 years later. He wrote his experiences, thoughts, and feelings as they related in importance to his life at the time.
"And the fact that, although this journal was clearly intended for an audience, he didn't use any of it in the entire newspaper he published, and wrote mostly on his own. Please explain all of those things."
Your statement that Law "clearly intended it for an audience" is nothing more than your opinion based on zero facts. Over the last eight months, you have stated numerous opinions about many different issues, based on zero facts, and rather because that's how you want the history to be in your zealous mind. Such as your nutty opinion that "William Clayton had an agenda to frame Joseph" or "Brigham Young brought in a ringer to impersonate Joseph to intimidate Martha Brotherton into polygamy."
But overarching all of this is the fact that Law's journal entries reflect what we know was happening at the time from other sources. Your agenda here is to discredit Law's character, but you ignore how faithful and loyal he was to Smith *before* he learned the truth about polygamy. From the Lyndon Cook article:
"From 1840 through 1843 william made his home available for church meetings
of all kinds and during approximately the same time period he filled
regular preaching assignments at nauvoo and in lee county iowa
territory. The first presidency counselor defended joseph smiths
character in 1842 by issuing public statements condemning john C.
bennetts licentious conduct at nauvoo, and later that same year
september november william made a second mission to the
eastern states to preach the gospel, regulate church affairs and
counter bennett's allegations of immoral conduct on the part of the
prophet.
"With eight others law received the ancient endowment
from joseph smith in may 1842 and continued to meet in private
councils with the prophet until january 1844. William aidedjoseph aided joseph
smith immeasurably during the latter's hiding from law enforcement
officers during august through december 1842 and both law
brothers extended moral and financial support to the prophet during
his trial in springfield illinois in january 1843."
So your attempt to paint Law as an overall horrible person and secret enemy of Joseph Smith is refuted by an actual legitimate historian.
Law defended Smith against Bennett's accusations *before* Hyrum admitted polygamy to the Nauvoo High Council, and *before* Joseph admitted polygamy personally to Law. Law explained his change of opinion re: Joseph in his 1887 interview:
“In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?”
“Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother.”
Your attempt to discredit Law's narrative is further dashed by his son Richard's remarks about those events, as copied in the 1982 Lyndon Cook article which you apparently recently discovered:
"William's son said his father with his arms around the neck of the
prophet was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural
marriage william pleaded for this with joseph with tears
streaming from his eyes the prophet was also in tears but he informed william that he could not withdraw the doctrine for god
had commanded him to teach it and condemnation would come
upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment."
So you see Michelle, what's happening here is that you are playing a losing game of whack-a-mole. Every time you try to discredit people who spoke or wrote that Joseph started polygamy, you are faced with numerous other moles popping up saying the same thing.
Also, I don't suppose you noted this from Lyndon Cook's article:
"The trial of excommunication 18 april 1844 involved thirty two
male members joseph smith hyrum smith and sidney rigdon
were conspicuously absent and while church bishop newel K
whitney did participate in the trial it was brigham young president
of the twelve apostles who presided."
You have asserted that Brigham Young was the grand conspirator behind polygamy, against Joseph's teachings and without his knowledge; but here's that horrible (in your mind) Brigham presiding over the church court in which the men who accused Joseph of polygamy were excommunicated in absentia. So obviously, Brigham Young was supporting and defending Joseph Smith as of April 18, 1844. That is the opposite of your nonsensical view of Brigham.
Me too! There’s a reason that historians refuse to include it as part of their footnotes any longer.
Love it!! The Nauvoo history is my favorite to study!! It’s like a day time soap opera 🤣
You jumped right in and knocked it out of the park! Great job Michelle! Keep it coming! The Lord is healing his marred servent.
Has your church contacted you to confirm your research yet? Will you ever be considered one of their experts? Are you afraid they may have people "monitoring" you?
For those who love you and your presentations, please do not cater to the critics. I heard that Joseph voted against the destruction of the Expositor. Either way the conspirators would have killed Joseph and mobbed the people. I really care about learning this. It would help if you put the pages on screen so we can read along.
Michelle, Great presentation. Excellent research. Solid arguments. Keep going!
Great work. Loved the sources especially the William Law letters to the newspaper. Sorry you have to put up with so many trolls comments when they do not even watch. The exmos hate what you are doing.
Active members hate what she is doing too. She is in apostasy on the other end of the spectrum.
@@joshua.snyder I think there will be more and more like her in the church, as the church unites or has already united with WEF, UN and the whore of all the earth. How sad to see the church I have loved and worked in for so many years be destroyed. The seeds of destruction were laid even before Joseph was murdered. All the way back in Kirkland and into Missouri great big elders worked at removing Joseph and making the church in their own image. I know Joseph did not practice polygamy but Brigham did. Brigham said he received the doctrine and not Joseph. Why the LDS scholars have to teach that Joseph was a liar and terrible man to protect Brigham is beyond me unless you are trying to destroy what is left of the restauration. The LDS scholars do more damage to testimony than the exmos because members trust them. So if they say that Joseph married a 14 year old, the members believe this is true. It is not. It causes alarm and shakes members so they doubt the prophet Joseph and then the Book of Mormon. Then they start listening to exmos because they want to know more about these issues. Yet the issues are all from Brigham Young. You notice the exmo's and LDS scholars rarely criticize Brigham, only Joseph. That is called marring. Then they say Joseph was a liar about where the Lamanites lived. Joseph Smith said in the United States. The so intelligent LDS scholars say Mexico. Then Joseph says he used an Urim and Thummin to translate the plates. The scholars say he lied and that he used a stone in a hat. We have so many Sherem's as LDS scholars that lead the sheep right to the Nehor's and Korihors. What a disaster. So if Michelle tried to open peoples eyes up to the words of Joseph and his true beliefs about polygamy using facts I find it hard to say she is in apostacy. I personally see Brian Hales, Bateman, Book of Mormon Central and BYU in apostacy. Not apostacy from Brigham but from Joseph Smith and God.
FYI - In a silly note, the flowers in the background change a lot watch the top flower, though all are moving, which is kind of eerie
You cracked the case! It's all a conspiracy! The flowers move! LOL
Thanks, Michelle, great presentation. The Lord knew of these things well before they happened. He talks of "secret chambers" going on in 1831 and would continue to this day who would seek to destroy the Prophet Joseph Smith's reputation and perpetuate the lies that he started polygamy when he didn't. The prophet Joseph had a forgiving nature, he hoped people would change and repent of their immorality, lies, and deceptions. Many as you brought up who were friends later turned on him and sought his destruction.
.Revelation was given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Fayette, New York, on January 2, 1831. HC 1:140-143.
13 "And now I show unto you a mystery, a thing which is had in secret chambers, to bring to pass even your destruction in process of time, and ye knew it not;"
24 "And let every man esteem his brother as himself, and practise virtue and holiness before me.
25 And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself.
26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there-and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?
27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.
28 And again, I say unto you that the enemy in the secret chambers seeketh your lives.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 38:12 - 28)
John C Bennett would have casually m certainly fit in the the Expositor group. How they are seen as heroes for anything is beyond me.
And yet everything in the Expositor checks out and rings true. There really was not a Temple. Multiple people testify to the propositions, and the destruction of character of all who say no to Joseph. The salacious things said about the Laws come from the Smiths. All the crazy claims in the Expositor will become official Church doctrine, or as the Expositor says already were. I hope it is understood Bennet is long gone, leaving 2 years earlier and yet Bennet knows D&C 132 when he is in Nauvoo (1841)
I enjoyed this episode. I hope you will note at the end of this saga which people of questionable motives move on to UTah.
Wow, that would be another huge topic. Not sure I can get to it right now, but I will add it to the list. Thank you :)
Section 132 was doctored. What it was before that we cannot know. All we do know is that it is a mess in its final form.
Such excellent work, Michelle. Thank you 🙏🏻
At the 1:00:08 mark I think you make a statement that I think is so true: people who trust Joseph Smith as a reliable witness will interpret the data so differently from people who do not. I think there is conjecture and implication imposed on both sides of the argument. Personally, I believe Joseph was not honest based on a wide investigation of his actions, so I interpret your "data" differently than you do. As far as I can tell you have laid out a circumstantial case that William Law was a "bad" guy. None of which necessarily means that, in the end, he "lied" about Joseph's polygamy. He could have hated Joseph, been a vile and wicked man and still have told the truth. We just don't know. Also, I think the picture you paint of the Laws and Higbees could be applied to Joseph also. Immorality, dishonesty ... Joseph himself said that he was s sinful person. I await real hard evidence Joseph did not practice polygamy, but being an hour in, and not hearing any so far, I doubt is will be forthcoming. But I'll keep listening.
William and Jane Law along with his brother, Fosters, Higbee's, Cowles and 200 LDS men signed a blood oath to kill Joseph. That was how many of the members viewed Joseph and his message. They wanted someone else. So Joseph Smith and the Lord's message were destroyed. William Law was a murderer and worse a master mahan who had joy in his craft for a season. Take his word from the toilet if you want. Evil trees do not give good fruit, never. His testimony counts and less than zero if one could get there.
You have two groups, those who claimed Joseph practiced polygamy and those who claimed he did not. It is impossible to determine which group is telling the truth without looking at the character and motives of the people involved. Anyone can make accusations, that doesn't make them true. When John C. Bennett was exposed for being the despicable man he was and run out of Nauvoo, he set out to destroy Joseph by basically accusing Joseph of everything he himself did. Chauncey Higbee was Bennett's cohort so it isn't at all surprising that after being exposed he would align himself with the Expositor gang, who had been excommunicated and exposed, and resort to the same tactics. These men hated Joseph so much they conspired to kill him but you think they can't resort to lying about or falsely accusing him?
Joseph was a sinner, but he clarified they weren't grave sins. He also stated that he was innocent of the accusations regarding polygamy being made against him and that he could prove those making the accusations perjurers. He never got that chance. But he certainly wasn't afraid. Joseph sued Chauncey for slander and defamation of character which you don't risk doing if you are trying not be exposed.
@@freethinker1026 I see you are truly a Free Thinker. Thanks, your comment is exactly correct. He would not expose these men if he were doing the same thing. I know you are aware he spoke to William Marks and wanted to bring the leading men, I assume Brigham and others of the 12 before the stake high council for polygamy. As you said he never got the chance. Lucifer started sowing tares among the wheat way back in Kirkland. Joseph was deceived as he said to William Marks, but I believe the Lord allowed it for various reasons, one of which was to expose Lucifer, allowing the saints to chose who they would follow. They rejected Joseph and God and so got another system. Isaiah knew this would happen as did Nephi and Moroni. So we wait for the purge that is at our doors, the Assyrian, the briars and thorns. Once we are humbled and repent then the Lord the second time can recover those that stand with him in and out of the church by sending his ensign or mighty servant. So we wait and try to warn as many as we can. I really appreciate your comment.
@@freethinker1026 I understand what you are explaining. Bennett, Laws and Higbees were horrible people and they hated Joseph. I get that. But I can take your sentence and reverse it and it is just as true: "Anyone can make accusations, that doesn't make them FALSE." Yeah, I think it is a given, they were pissed off at Joseph and they did immature things. So did Joseph! (If you told people in your WARD that a ward member had gonorreah, do you feel that is an action of a loving altruistic martyr?) In my life I have yet to see a heated disagreement between two parties where there is not some truth on both sides. That is why a disagreement arises. In your response above you easily accept Joseph's statement "he clarified they weren't grave sins." I look at Joseph's motives and there are a myriad of reasons why he might lie about that. Also, Joseph held a strong grip on the culture and adherents to the faith in Nauvoo. Your assertion the Joseph would never sue "Chauncey for slander and defamation of character" is just your opinion. I believe Joseph's hold over the people in Nauvoo would lessen his concern that such an action could backfire. You asked: "These men hated Joseph so much they conspired to kill him but you think they can't resort to lying about or falsely accusing him?" Of course they could have lied. But as I look at the preponderance of evidence for Joseph's polygamy, I don't think they did lie. However, I KNOW Joseph lied about many things. But that is a whole other can of worms that we will not agree on. So, please accept this in a spirit of just disagreement, not malice. If you have real evidence, I would love to see it, but, for me, this episode has been full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing.
@@stuartjensen2004 Of course either party could lie. And both said things against each other. The difference I see is that we have evidence that the Expositor clan was plotting to kill Joseph prior to printing what they said about him. Whereas Joseph was talking about them in an attempt to defend himself by showing their characters. The things with Chauncey, had come to light years earlier, it's not like Joseph couldn't wait to make his business public. And yes if I was being falsely accused by someone in my ward and I knew something about them that would put their credibility into question I would absolutely bring it up in an attempt to defend myself.
I didn't say Joseph would never sue Chauncey I said you don't take that risk if you are trying to hide something. I'm not sure what hold you think Joseph had over the people but it certainly wasn't a strong hold considering how many people turned on him for far less things than polygamy. He would have to be a fool to have that much confidence at that point.
I didn't readily accept Joseph's claim that they weren't grave sins. I simply added that part of the statement, that you conveniently left out, which left out can lead people to think he was confessing something bigger than he was.
Your preponderance of evidence comes decades later and is filled with serious credibility issues. It also ignores all the evidence both contemporaneous and later to the contrary
49:52 what would the motive be for Alexander to make this up in his personal journal?
Motive problematic motive, that story also supports the D&C 132 as Joseph and Joseph alone has the keys, thus the only path for any women to the after life is through Joseph and Joseph alone. Alexander is explaining that all women however Mrs Law in this case can only go to the higher heaven through Joseph Smith. This supports Joseph can do as he please with any woman because the woman benefits more. It clearly explains the problem with any other man having sex outside marriage as they cant pay the girl with celestial reward.
Let me add something important about the presentation 3 minutes (~46mins) before that something else happens. The presenter gladly accepts a retro story, that is the presenter constantly claiming all Joseph Smith accusations are retro and thus unfair. However it is worse as Mr Law claims that is a standard technique of the Smith's to falsely lets use his words " In return for this scorn, he generally managed to blacken their reputations", so the presentation shows the practice. If Hyrum did in fact smear unjustly both Laws then it all makes sense. If false smears cause problems for the Laws it kind of explains all.
I haven't dug into that specific source enough to fully understand either Neibar or his journal. It is certainly interesting. I have some thought I could speculate, but since i haven't studied it I don't know if that would be worth much. My first suspicion is that this might have been a later creation, but we would need to study out the provenance of this journal to see if that is possible. If it was found since or after Mark Hoffmann, for example... But, like I said, I haven't done that work, so I don't know.
If Neibar had at least provided a day, or even rough time, that this happened, so we could see if it were possible, or if he told us how he heard these things, so we could trace if that were possible, it would help a lot. (A pattern I seem to see in forgeries, like Law's diary is to leave things obscure -- claim them but never nail anything down.) What I know is that this could NOT have happened on May 24, 1844. And I haven't yet found a way to make any sense of it happening at any point. But I'm definitely open to learning more.
It looks like you lit up some fire with this episode. I have never seen as many trolls in comments.
This is the first I heard there was a plan to kill the entire smith family. It makes sense.
In my growing up years it made me wonder why whoever killed Joseph and Hyrum stopped at that point. I would think that if someone was that motivated, they would continue the rampage. Many of the influential in the church had left the church or been excommunicated so maybe they were not a target at that point. Does anyone know if there were attempts made on the lives of others who were influential within the church?
Samuel Smith died July 30th, 1844, and is sometimes called the 3rd martyr. They say he died of injuries from riding hard to Carthage to help his brothers, but others say he was poisoned.
Samuel Smith was poisoned by a friend of Brigham's. Emma's house was set on fire. What a mess.
Thanks for contributing, I had wondered. It always raised red flags with me. I can't relate to wanting to kill. I've been angry of course and lost my temper more times than I can even begin to count but can't get my mind around the concept of desiring to eliminate a human. But think for a minute, to catch a fox think like a fox.
If I was outside the church and felt threatened or angry enough to want to destroy it by decapitation at its head then going after Joseph Smith would be the logical move. However I would know he would soon be replaced. Perhaps whoever did it thought Hyrum would be a shoe in for that. But to think like a fox for a minute, I would think to go after the rising stars in the movement like the Kimballs, Snows, Whitmer, Youngs (Brigham had a brother) or other Influential families.
If I was within the church and felt threatened or angry enough to commit such a act, I would come to the same conclusion
Unless I had an agenda. Is this the same thoughts others have when trying to think like a fox?
Your take on the "Loophole" in Jacob was helpful (second video)
This is so interesting
There's a book called Power vs Force by David R. Hawkins that describes a method for determining truth directly from the light of Christ (consciousness). It also shows the original purpose for which kings/wise men were to carry a heavy scepter/staff. Works only for integrous people for integrous purposes. I imagine it would help you especially as you attempt to sift through all these lies.
Sounds interesting. I am all for additional way to discern truth, but I do think the documented historical record also has a lot to tell us.
That's the thing about the method described in the books of David R. Hawkins. There's a calibrated logarithmic scale from 1 - 1000 (for this world) and beyond this world up to infinity (God). Using the method you can get an average calibrated level for each historical record. Below 200 it's a fake. The higher above 200, the more truth it has. And you can take it as far as you want, chapter by chapter, line by line, and get a number for each. For example polygamy is at 145, while monogamy is at 255. Joseph Smith was 510. Jesus Christ was 1000.
@@RK__1986 okay, that is fascinating! Thanks for sharing.
The Jews were expecting a king in this physical world. Jesus taught them something else:
"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." --Luke 17:20-21
We should probably be wary of making the same mistake when expecting our David:
"Although David was a king he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fulness of the Priesthood; and the priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days raised up out of his lineage" --Joseph Smith
What does it mean to "obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fulness of the Priesthood"? Does "kingdom of David" really mean a physical kingdom?
Maybe this David already came, obtained his promised blessings, delivered his teachings, and we didn't even know. Did we make the same mistake as the Jews?
@@RK__1986Have you heard of Chief David Midegah (Taylor) yet?
I love how you bash on William Law and John C Bennett. Considering they were both in the first presidency and knew Joseph firsthand and way better than you do. It would be like having Dallin and Henry say Rusty is stealing money. Either Joseph with a complete jerk to everyone he met or the people that knew him best wanted nothing to do with him. His lack of discernment is mind-boggling
Why don't you simply provide a link to the actual newspaper. It certainly exists I noticed that you blah blah blah and don't even talk about what was in it. All you have to do is simply read it
It's listed in the links
Let's do a little thought experiment. If your two best friends and closest confidants came to me and told me that you were having an affair on your husband and introduced me to your lovers. Would I really trust your denials?
Joseph and Hyrum paraphrased a portion of the July 12, 1843 revelation in the Nauvoo neighbor when people were accusing them of preaching plural marriage. Why did they not just publish the revelation to show everyone that that’s not what it was about? They never published the revelation or included it in the newest edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Why do you think they were hiding it?
Oh, I REALLY hope you will watch tomorrow. I actually answer that exact question, plus many others 🙂
How many times was the word "polygamy" or phrase "plural marriage" mentioned, spoken, written BEFORE Joseph & Hyrum died? WHERE did that come from? Joseph Smith was a control freak? How could polygamy occur and NOT have him take action, against those who were leaders in The Church, practicing it, against his, THE PROPHET'S DIRECTION? Joseph, if he was the person you claim he was, would have sniffed out and snuffed out ANYONE practicing polygamy.........BUT....... HE DIDN'T. Obviously this is a case of "Where there is smoke there is fire." So much smoke around Joseph engaged in plural marriage.
I'm not sure I understand that point of this question, but the term polygamy was used a lot during Joseph's lifetime -- and he always, every single time, denied and condemned it. Celestial plural marriage is a term the polygamists made up after Joseph's death so they could pretend that Joseph's many denials of polygamy by any name didn't apply to their polygamy. The polygamists busily spread lies that Joseph supported what they were doing, and every time those claims made it back to Joseph or Hyrum they did everything in their power to combat those lies. They constantly did everything they could to try to find and root out polygamy in the church.
I promise this will be my last post here. I am sorry but the irony is too great to stop my typing. Michelle, did you really write this little tid bit: " ...to explain that when people just call names, or attribute motives, it shuts down conversation."? All you have done in the entire episode is "attribute motives" to "wicked" people who write "anti-mormon" statements/literature. I am called a "troll". Hmmm, calling names, attributing motives anyone?
Honest truth seekers, free thinkers, might not want to use all encompassing language like, "You can't believe a word this guy says." This is obviously a "figure of speech" but it lessens your credibility.
If John Bennett and William Law were so bad, why did Joseph Smith call them to his First Presidency?
I thought I alluded to this, but maybe it was in another episode. Joseph didn't seem to choose these men because of their spiritual gifts. He seemed to look at his first presidency more like a president looks at his vice president and cabinet. He chose men who were leaders of large groups of the saints and who had ability and influence. This was the case with Sydney Rigdon, who was the pastor of the huge congregation that all joined the church and gathered with the Saints. Bennett was extremely impressive (at first) everywhere he went -- until his narcissistic psychopathy caught up with him. He was almost single-handedly responsible for getting the Nauvoo city charter passed. William Law was a similar case. He was a respected leader among the large group of Canadian saints that gathered, and, as covered in this episode, he had means and quickly became more and more wealthy and influential. In many ways he was a logical choice. It is unfortunate for sure. In the Doctrine and Covenants God basically tells Joseph that he wasn't given the ability to be a very good judge of character -- he was actually too forgiving and long-suffering, and projected his goodness and sincerity onto others, which is something I can relate to. These can be hard lessons to learn. Good people don't naturally imagine that other people aren't like them -- it takes a lot to teach them that people can be so terrible.
@@MichelleBStone This means Smith exhibited poor judgment in his top councillors. Imagine if Smith had been killed earlier; then either Bennett or Law could have become the church president. Yikes. Another question: How do polygamy deniers explain the content in the Expositor that is similar to 132?
Well, my opinion is the episode starts very well and actually ends great around 1hr:50 however there are a bunch of contradictory interjections which maybe you can clarify?
The summation sounds like Joseph Smith who actually has been living on the lam as a jail escapee who has charges in both states (Illinois & Missouri) needs the special city charter which allows Joseph to always be found innocent in the city and protected by armed guards in the city, and protected by a no extradition while in the city (self-proclaimed right which doesn't actually have a legal base). That without that self-proclaimed authority in Nauvoo Joseph would be tried in both states?
So for example one of many, many contradictions is :
1) if Joseph is being protected by the charter why is he living on the Lam and not in Nauvoo?
2) If the plan to murder, rape, and exterminate the Mormons already exists then Expositor would mean nothing or actually help the Smiths, since it would publicly pre-warn the ills thus making the "bad peoples" job harder, again why would people sign their name to a public plan to murder since they already know it is coming? This would be self-incrimination.
3) If the Nauvoo Charter was so critical to Mormons safety, not Joseph but Mormons, you couldn't give away the Expositor. It would be pointless for Mormons to propose to other Mormons that they all give up their only protection.
4)Polygamy and D&C 132 verses D&C 101 with celestial marriages problem again: It is said that the rejection of the Smith girl's marriage proposal is a major cause, and the attempted plural wifery of a married woman was another major factor festering the existing money issues, however that is contradictory. Since D&C 101 should be in place there is no base for these problems, under D&C 101 it is one wife only. And any celestial stuff can only occur via Joseph and doesn't matter until after death. However if D&C 132 was in practice in which case it was Joseph and Joseph alone who could make those marriages happen so why were these Mormons acting in accordance with D&C 132 on these female issues? Why did these men need action from Joseph's D&C 132 authority?
Have we not discussed Governor Ford's letter which address this?
Please don't forget the whole Plural Gods, man god thing as it is critical in D&C 132 and the Expositor
Hang in there you have a job and half on this Expositor and take all the time you need.
I want to post something else which does and does not fit this episode but is a major flaw in this conspiracy theory Joseph Smith dies on June 27, 1844, okay so that tells me the conspirators have to seize power on June 27, 1844. Now that shooting occurs at night so June 28, 1844 is the day to cement the new authority over all the Church and its members and stamp out any false claims to authority, so where is it? It is show time but who shows up? Who stood up and took control? Where are these key players: Brigham Young?, William Law?, Wilson Law?, Francis M. Higbee?, Chauncey L. Higbee?, Robert Foster?, Charles Foster?, Charles Ivins ? , Sylvester Emmons,? If they murder to get this opportunity where are they?
We don't need a quick answer, it does seem this mob of Mormon killed Joseph for his actions and not his position or authority. Honestly nothing was gained from the past when Joseph died, but the future changed, not another dollar, not another daughter, not another wife, not another lie.
@@whatsup3270 They don't have to seize power immediately, they simply have to keep anyone else from doing so until they are ready. It's preposterous to think that any of the Expositor clan could take control of the church as they had all been excommunicated and the members believed they had a role in Joseph's death, they were not trusted. The Expositor clan didn't want Joseph dead to take his place, it was for revenge. And William Law had already started his own church of which they were all members.
Brigham Young was out of town with the majority of the 12. And when Sidney Rigdon was the first to arrive in Nauvoo and made claim to be the successor Pratt, Richards, Taylor and George A. Smith tried to hold him off until the rest of the 12 returned. They couldn't get him to delay the meeting but Brigham miraculously showed up in time for it.
June 27 to Aug. 8 is not a long time to wait to seize power and had Brigham shown up in Nauvoo on the 28 of July, or any sooner than he did, it would have raised suspicion.
From the affidavits in the Nauvoo Expositor I think it’s unquestionable that D&C 132 obviously existed at that time. I know you’re trying to give context and discredit William Law, but anyway look at him I don’t think there’s anyway that you can say that D&C 132 did not exist when they wrote those affidavits.
Please stay tuned for parts 2 and 3. I think you will be surprised.
Exactly.
Part 2 will be released 9/17. I hope you will all watch it. Then we can talk 😉
There were members of the church who were practicing polygamy at the time those affidavits were made and it is very possible that the phrases found in the affidavits were used to convince women to enter into these marriages. That does not equate to a revelation existing or to it being associated with Joseph. Both Joseph and Hyrum testified before the City Council regarding the revelation that was discussed in the high council and those who had been present confirmed that it was not what the Expositor claimed it to be. Not only that but as Michelle mentions Chauncey Higbee had been engaged in the same activity as Bennett and had already attributed his own words to Joseph so it is not far fetched to believe he and his friends,,, who had an axe to grind against Joseph, would do so again in the expositor.
Wow I learned so much. Thanks for this, Michelle!!!🩷🩷🩷
By the way im not a troll. Im a member who has studied the history too..
If you have studied the history too you should have found out what she has found out.. and you should have brought it forward for others to know..
They were the mob...
That was an excellent summary of the issues you made in the first 5 minutes. However, then you had 2 hours of information largely irrelevant to the main issue. That main issue is: why are all 3 of the affadavits in the
Expositor have what are exact or nearly exact quotes from Section 132, if you do not believe Joseph Smith authored Section 132? The only explanation is that 1. JS was the author of Sec 132 or 2. One of the 3 affiants fabricated Section 132. The latter must be your argument, so can you find any evidence that this is true?
I understand your comment. It was hard to decide what to address first because there is so much misinformation to address and so much information to cover. I think this information is highly relevant. The first misconception to this is that William Law was an extremely faithful, honest man who only turned on Joseph because of polygamy, and that polygamy was the reason for the Nauvoo Expositor, and the reason for its destruction. Now that you understand that none of that is true it is easy to dismiss its importance, but it sets context for what we will cover next. I tried to clearly explain this. And I do not at all agree with your two possible options. I think you will see that even William Law disproves your assumptions. There is still a ton of work, but I will get it done as quickly as I can.
Not at all. Brigham young and his buddies wrote it.
@@MichelleBStone I think it was good to get this needed background on William Law. It paints a very different picture of him. I'm looking forward to the explanations on those important questions.
@@MichelleBStone
D&C 124:91 "And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right;
97 Let my servant William Law also receive the keys by which he may ask and receive blessings; let him be humble before me, and be without guile, and he shall receive of my Spirit, even the Comforter, which shall manifest unto him the truth of all things, and shall give him, in the very hour, what he shall say.
98 And these signs shall follow him-he shall heal the sick, he shall cast out devils, and shall be delivered from those who would administer unto him deadly poison;
99 And he shall be led in paths where the poisonous serpent cannot lay hold upon his heel, and he shall mount up in the imagination of his thoughts as upon eagles’ wings.
100 And what if I will that he should raise the dead, let him not withhold his voice.
101 Therefore, let my servant William cry aloud and spare not, with joy and rejoicing, and with hosannas to him that sitteth upon the throne forever and ever, saith the Lord your God."
Gee, you'd think that the god of Mormonism would have been a little more careful in choosing the men whom he instructed Joseph Smith to place in the highest leadership positions in his one true restored church.
" That main issue is: why are all 3 of the affadavits in the
Expositor have what are exact or nearly exact quotes from Section 132, if you do not believe Joseph Smith authored Section 132? "
Michelle Stone believes that Joseph Smith issued a revelation which authorized only monogamous eternal marriages, and that Brigham Young somehow got ahold of a copy and altered it to include the portions about plural marriage. The historical evidence shows that Smith dictated the revelation to his secretary William Clayton on July 12, 1843. One month later, on August 12, 1843, Hyrum Smith read the revelation before the Nauvoo High Council to seek their vote to sustain the revelation as church doctrine. Meaning: the revelation did not exist on paper until then. Before that, the principles of plural marriage had only been shared verbally with a couple of dozen of Joseph Smith's most loyal insiders.
A seventeen year old convert named Martha Brotherton, who had just arrived in Nauvoo from England in June 1842, stated that she had only been in the city for three weeks when Heber C. Kimball asked her to go to Joseph Smith's store with him. Upon arriving, Martha related this event:
"In this office were two men writing, one of whom, William Clayton, I had seen in England; the other I did not know. Young came in, and seated himself before me, and asked where Kimball was. I said he had gone out. He said it was all right. Soon after, Joseph came in, and spoke to one of the clerks, and then went up stairs, followed by Young.
"Immediately after, Kimball came in. “Now, Martha,” said he, “the Prophet has come; come up stairs.” I went, and we found Young and the Prophet alone. I was introduced to the Prophet by Young. Joseph offered me his seat, and, to my astonishment, the moment I was seated, Joseph and Kimball walked out of the room, and left me with Young, who arose, locked the door, closed the window, and drew the curtain...
“said he, “brother Joseph has had a revelation from God [not yet written down] that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days, and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me, I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come, and brother Joseph will marry us here to-day, and you can go home this evening, and your parents will not know any thing about it.”
End quote. So, Martha Brotherton's account tells us that Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and William Clayton were already schooled in the principles of plural marriage as taught to them by Joseph Smith in July, 1842. Her phrase "it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham" makes it perfectly clear that what Young, Kimball, and Clayton had been taught, and what Young repeated to Martha, included the same principles and the same verbiage which Joseph Smith formally dictated to Clayton a year later.
So, this is just one of many published documents which completely demolishes Michelle's Stone's ridiculous theory that Brigham Young altered Smith's revelation to include the portions about plural marriage at some point after Smith issued his revelation. Obviously, Martha Brotherton could not have quoted Brigham Young stating that specific verbiage about having two wives in June 1842, if the "real" revelation (according to Michelle Stone's wild theory) did not even exist until July 1843.
So, verbiage in Martha Brotherton's July 1842 affidavit corroborates the details of the Nauvoo Expositor affidavits filed in May 1844. And one of those affidavits, of Nauvoo High Councilor Austin Cowles, who was in that August 12, 1843 High Council meeting in which Hyrum Smith presented the revelation, is corroborated by those of six other men who were present in that meeting. ALL of those men testified that the document which Hyrum read is the same text as D&C 132 today.
So, Michelle's attempt to discredit William Law's and Austin Cowles' affidavits by attacking their character and motives is refuted by the fact that numerous other eyewitness participants swore legal affidavits which stated the same thing that Law and Cowles did. Unfortunately, I have yet to see that Michelle is able to understand how and why these facts refute her stance that Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith did not teach or practice polygamy.
Basically you are saying that even though william and joseph are doing the same things (joseph even more really) when william does it it’s bad and when joseph does it it’s good.
Oh Michelle, where were you when joseph needed you?
You should watch part 2. It might clear some things up for you.
@@MichelleBStone will do, if I can stomach the double standard.
Better to pursue Christ's, than man's.
William Law sounds like an opportunist similar to Joseph Smith (see D&C 124). But the character of the Expositor authors is not relevant to whether the Expositor documents that D&C 132 (or a similar document) existed before Joseph's death.
I mentioned several times that we will get to those specific claims in part 2, and if necessary, part 3.
Yes, I agree that the character of Joseph Smith's enemies is entirely secondary to the core issue. Either the affiants are quoting from a document created by Joseph Smith (or Hyrum Smith), or one of them fabricated Sec 132 (in which case they would have to create the document, slip it to Hyrum, and convince him it was from Joseph--this does not seem likely).
@@MichelleBStone Sure you will. Your "evidence" here was awfully weak.
@@lrsvalentine I'm what way? Before watching you were certain that William Law was a very good guy who only started the Nauvoo Expositor because of Polygamy. Do you still claim that?
@@MichelleBStone Yes. I still claim William Law was a better person than Joe Smith. Your "evidence" is weak.
Joe didn't profit in Nauvoo?
@lrsvalentine I find people like you interesting. Very. And, honestly, I mean no offense here, at all! But, wallowing in a self-constructed misery. To come and watch a video of a system and man you detest for 2.5< hours and then to take the time to negatively engage in the topic takes a special kind of mental and emotional hell--as if invested in a labor that would be as if the harder you work the more people will believe--perhaps? Here is what I think as a forensics social scientist. You like misery but it is all you know because you do not understand happiness. I would bet you are miserable in your daily routine and feel it much the same as you do about your appearance, inward thinking, and you know, your sexual satisfaction is lacking. Do you have to take yourself to the extreme sexually to gain pleasure? I really do not mean offense--in all my neo-Freudianism. On that unhappy index, could it be you were damaged or traumatized, or hurt/betrayed in such a way as to draw energy from this sort of engagement? I am just enamored with negative behaviors in people who dwell in that realm? How do they enjoy their life on this planet and take the time to indulge in negative enjoyment? I am sure you are in the Dehlin camp. Have you not noticed the unhappy gaze in him, Reel, RFM, etc.? I want to be happy and want others to be happy, like you! I do! I want people to live a full life of joy and engagement of full living. For you to come here--if I was your therapist I would seriously recommend you find a new outlet. This is junk food for your soul. You need to find serious emotional nourishment! I wish I could help you do that. So let me ask, take no offense, Have you been black-pilled in someway that hurt you and put you in this nihilistic realm of emotion and engagement? I would love to hear your story. I mean that.
No, Joseph was only the mayor, the head of the Nauvoo Legion, the Prophet Seer & Revelator to the Church, the holder of nearly all the property in Nauvoo, why would you think any of HIS motives were for personal gain? Don't you understand that the purpose of this channel is to uphold the virtue of Joseph Smith at all costs?
@@KSASTAMPS You are right. But even that is funny. If Brigham ran with polygamy, amen to Bro Brigham's priesthood authority. Or so says Joe's D&C. Then Michelle et al aren't even really baptized.
@@lrsvalentine it is et al.
@@TheOGProtestantMormon Just as I said.
So the guy who tried to skirt banking regulation laws with the anti banking bank wasn't involved in counterfeiting in any way?😂😂😂. Wow, poor Joe didn't know anything that was going on in Nauvoo. It's almost as if he weren't a prophet.
Joseph H. Jackson was a close aide to Joseph Smith for the last 20 months of his life. Shortly before Smith's arrest, Jackson left Nauvoo and wrote his account of his dealings with Smith and other top church leaders, which included this:
"But to return to the Bogus establishment. The first attempts at Bogus making were rather rough; but in October, Messrs. Barton and Eaton, came on from Buffalo, having been sent by one of Joe’s emissaries, and brought with them a splendid press and all the necessary tools and materials for operation. The press was put up in the south east room, up stairs, of the house formerly occupied by Joe, being the same room where the holy order had previously met. The business was then rushed ahead in good earnest, and an excellent specimen of base coin produced. Soon the city was flooded with this money and a report was put in circulation that Bogus manufactures were at work in the city. Joe had given out that the room occupied by the press was rented to Messrs. Barton and Eaton, who were mechanics, and were making drafts for the machinery, of a factory which they contemplated erecting. The press continued to run until they had manufactured about $350,000. The intention was to keep the press running and purchase a large amount of stock, but being forced to move it, by a circumstance which I shall presently relate, Joe concluded to wait until spring when the large emigration which was expected would afford a better chance to operate. About half of the money manufactured was put in circulation in Hancock county, and the balance sent east, or passed off to transient persons. All the twelve Apostles except Orson Pratt and Eber C. Kimball, were engaged in this business, and frequently Visited the room where the press was, and took turns in working it. Hyrum, at the time the press was in operation had a lame knee and could not get out of the house, but Joe and myself frequently visited him and discussed measures for raising the wind to purchase more stock. Joe, told me that in Ohio, he, Dr. Boynton, Lyman Wight, Oliver Cowdry and Hyrum, were engaged with others in a Bogus establishment on Licking Creek, but that their operations were cut short by the bursting of the Kirtland Bank.
While the press was suspended in its operations, a man by the name of Brown, came to Nauvoo, and sold to Joe a quantity of counterfeit ten dollar Yates County bills, for twenty dollars per hundred. Joe and Hyrum have been frequently seen with their hands full of these bills, by many persons in Nauvoo, and by them the whole country was flooded. There is not a merchant in the city but krows this fact and also that there has been a large quantity of Bogus in circulation. The first who detected the counterfeit paper money, were Hpldridge, Gilman, & Co., of the New York Store. The large amount of spurious money afloat, caused a great excitement in the city, and it became a common talk amongst the most wealthy class, who were not afraid to speak their minds. The agitation of the subject, very much offended His Holiness, and he to save himself, railed out in his characteristic style, and pronounced all the curses of God on the heads of these persons. who were in fact the most substantial men in the city: such as the two Laws, Dr. Foster, F. M. Foster, C. L. Higbee and Mr. Cole. These men, he accused of being guilty of all kinds of crime, especially of counterfeiting. This was all done to kill their influence, and in the hope that by raising the cry "stop thief," he would turn suspicion from himself."
"Joseph Smith was not the author of D&C 132" Rob Fotheringham
@@six1nyne I'm glad that you suggested that source. I suggest that everyone here read the historical documentation I posted in the comments section of that video.
@@randyjordan5521 You always pick the worst horses. Jackson tried to marry Hyrum's daughter and then asked Joseph for help. He got none. So Jackson swore to kill the whole Smith family. Keep looking under every rock to find another loser to love.
😊
Have you ever asked how Joseph smith was financially independent? You insinuate that wealth was more important than spiritual dedication and yet Smith used other men’s wealth to build his kingdom. His miraculous revelations required others to provide for his family and Emma suffered considerably always having to live with other families, take in boarders, and try to bring in an income. You claim to want to read WOMANS stories but you ignore the woman’s voices that chide your false prophet!
What a bizarrely internally inconsistent comment. Joseph was independently wealthy and required others to provide for his family, but Emma was homeless and impoverished? You'll need to help me understand what you are actually trying to say. You do realized that when Joseph was killed he was tens of thousands of dollards in debt, because of his efforts to built this community and provide for all the people, right? You bring up Emma, and bring up the concern about ignoring women's voices, but you completely ignore Emma's voice -- the most important feminine voice in this entire story. I have no idea where you are coming from, but at this point your thinking seems to be very fuzzy.
John Bennett? Joe's counselor? Bad guy? So much for discernment. Two counselors in a row is rough? Try, Joe had no discerning (seership) powers.
And he knew it. That's not a secret. It's even in the D&C. He was a man without guile.
@@Kristy_not_KristineNope. He was a man easily duped then. One without the spirit of discernment. The simplest explanation really is birds of a feather.
In regard to the "birds of a feather" comment, can you remind me of your perspective of why Joseph disciplined Bennett for his immorality? If they were partners in crime and seduction, why did they split up? I'm sure I've heard the answer, I'm just not remembering.
@@MichelleBStone Sure. The discipline was really for not keeping it (Joe's good ole principle of "celestial" marriage) secret. Simple enough. The convicted liar was always a liar.
@@lrsvalentine I would love to see your evidence for that. Do you have Joseph Smith on record saying that? Was that the issue in his trials? Was it recorded in any journals? Even William Clayton's? Did even John Bennett ever claim that? I would love to know what you rely on for your certainty of this claim.
Joe loved Canada. Tried to sell his bogus book there.
Correction, the Lord's book.
@@Kristy_not_Kristine Correction. Bible fan fiction proven false by biology, chemistry, archaeology , linguistics, and anthropology.
@@lrsvalentine Only if one is looking in the wrong place.
@@Kristy_not_KristineNope. Just looking in the real world where science reveals Joe a fraud.
Your overview of the Expositor is not true. It was just trying to expose the truth of Joe's polygamy.
Keep listening. You are sadly and incorrectly uninformed.
@@Kristy_not_Kristine Nope. Michelle's defense is poor. William Law was an entrepreneur and a capitalist. Oh goodness no.
@@lrsvalentine are you a relative? She just spent 2 hours laying out her case and providing links in the show notes so one can continue to look into the subject if so inclined, and you think you can dismiss it all with one or two sentences and no proof? lol :)
@@Kristy_not_KristineWeak sauce. Of course Joe, Hyrum, and the saints that went West tried to paint Law as a bad person. He exposed them. Michelle still hasn't shown how Law and others knew about Section 132 when Joe was alive. Rather, she just flings mud.
@@Kristy_not_Kristine Which two sentences are you referring to? Should I guess the ones where members are threatening J Smith to his face? Because those sentences would counter the long held "no contemporaneous evidence" claims.