Joseph Smith was not the author of D&C 132
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- The prophet Joseph Smith claimed he was not the author of D&C section 132
Corrections: At 20:31 I mistakenly said "William Marks" when I meant "William Law." At 14:31 I indicated the Church removed a document from their website. I have since learned the document was moved to a different (seemingly more obscure) location.
Hooray! You beat me to it! The Expositor and the true vs. fake revelations were on my list to cover in the next month. Now I may not even need to. This was excellent, Rob! Thank you for your incredible work!
please give your take and views on those items as well!
@@jaredsorensen1079 will do! I still plan to do it, it just will take a while, so I'm glad Rob's is up now.
@132problemsrevisitingmormo8
how does this settle with you not finding any records of sealings done in temples when joseph was alive ?- when joseph is on record speaking of the marriage sealing?
@@Kait272 We know very, very little about what Joseph received or taught about eternal marriage. I don't know that we even know he used the word "sealing" in that context. We just know that he taught that marriages needed to be done with a view of eternity. I need to study more to see if we know anything about him actually performing "sealings" for husband and wife. That's a very good question.
But in any case, we do have records of Joseph being married to Emma, and other legitimate marriages. There we recorded on certificates as well as in county records, and often also in family bibles. People who needed to be baptized posthumously had not previously been baptized into the church, so there were no records of baptism. Thus, according to Joseph, they needed to be recorded. Since actual marriages had already been recorded, it seems they didn't need to be recorded again.
"The Expositor and the true vs. fake revelations were on my list to cover in the next month. Now I may not even need to."
I agree with you there. I have already given you a ton of evidence over the last six months to convince rationally-thinking people that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy. You don't need to research those issues any further. All you need to do is go back through my comments and historical documentation I've already provided for you.
“For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.”
Hmm, sounds like that quote is referring to Joseph Smith's secret plural marriage practice being publicly exposed by William Law, Austin Cowles, etc.
@@randyjordan5521 God knows all the folks and deeds Jesus was talking about-I’m just amazed to be alive to see it!
@@gwendolynwyne It is indeed exciting to be alive during a time when orgs like the LDS church can no longer tell lies about its origins and history. We can learn everything that the church has been trying to hide from our keyboard and our monitor.
@@randyjordan5521 the rapture is coming, are you ready?
Rob I just want to let you know that I deeply appreciate the work you have done on this channel.
This changes everything. The LDS Church lost its solid, rock foundation once its only prophetic leaders (Joseph & Hyrum) were removed. Brigham chose to rebuild upon shifting sands. The LDS Church has been a continual cut-and-paste job ever since. Rob, for 20 years (from early 1990's to 2012) after reading the research of Michael D. Quinn, I started thinking Joseph was a "fallen prophet". By 2012 my son (Eagle & RM) shared Denver's 10 talks with me that started restoring my faith. I hadn't had that strong a feeling for Joseph since my attendance at Truman Madsen's inspiring talks about Joseph Smith at "Know Your Religion" series in the 80's. Now, with this new, and very convincing evidence that Joseph was true to his marriage and covenants with the Lord, my faith in him as a prophet, seer & revelator, and in his translations and revelations is fully restored. Thank you so much for your dedication to research this part of Joseph's history and uncover the exculpatory evidence on Joseph's (& Hyrum's and Emma's ) behalf!
The evidence that Joseph Smith originated polygamy in Mormonism and practiced it is exhaustive and conclusive. The fact that some people such as Rob Fotheringham, Michelle Stone, Jeremy Hoop, and Whitney Horning are in emotional and intellectual denial of historical fact does not magically wash away that evidence.
@@TheOGProtestantMormon If you're referring to financial poverty, Joseph Smith was wealthy at the time of his death, and he would have become wealthier if his life of crime hadn't led to his demise.
This is important church history work. Thank you Rob. Mind blown.
Rob, the JST content was just incredible. I haven't been able to get through then entirety of the work Joseph did with the bible but this really helped illustrate his prophetic understanding of adultery. The last slide regarding the discussion with William Law was extremely profound. Thank you for putting so much work into this important truth claim. At least those that are willing to listen, might actually wake up to the fact that all isn't well in Zion.
I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted on this comments section.
@@mattenger7064 Cool!
Would you be so kind as to point out any lies that you believe I have written, so I can repent of them?
@@mattenger7064 Are you a believing member of the Utah LDS Church? Because the Utah LDS Church admits that Joseph Smith committed adultery, had multiple wives, and lied.
"If I’m wrong and Jospeh did indeed lie, then I’ll be trust to hell with Jospeh. I trust Joseph’s words. I will defend his words."
You have absolutely no idea how nutty you sound, do ya.
@@randyjordan5521 no one wants to read your lies.
Thank you, Rob, for your valiant efforts to “…wear out [your life] in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness” (D&C 123:13)
I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted on this comments section.
@@randyjordan5521you are a snake in the grass. Do you really have nothing better to do than scour these videos and troll? Move on with your life.
@@randyjordan5521 No one here gives a shit Randy.
You consistently knock it out of the park!! There are so many that you bless with your invaluable diligence and work!! Eternally grateful ❤
I believe Joseph and Jacob. DC 132:1 vs. Jac. 2:23-24 was what made the puzzle click for me.
It is so wonderful to finally see so many people coming to the truth and to the defense of a man falsely accused of being involved with polygamy in any way.
What you're saying here is, you've completely ignore all of the historical documentation I've provided for you over the last 6-7 months, and you instead choose to remain a completely deluded fanatic.
@@randyjordan5521 it doesn’t matter what “evidence” you have, we are listening to the Holy Ghost and we are seeing more clearly than ever before.
@@glych002 Ah. In other words, you're a deluded religious fanatic who bases your life on feelings rather than facts.
"The Holy Ghost" is the very reason why Utah is the #1 state in the USA for affinity fraud. It's the reason why MLM schemes and other get-rich-schemes thrive in Utah. It's because Mormons have been brainwashed to "trust their feelings" about everything in life. So when you say that you are "listening to the Holy Ghost and we are seeing more clearly than every before," you are effectively saying "Look at me world, I'm a gullible sucker!"
Have you perchance ever studied the issue of Joseph Smith's polygamy practice on your own, or do you just watch videos like this one and assume that the host is fully informed and honest?
@@randyjordan5521 No, what I'm saying is that you insist on ignoring the facts I present to counter the slander, lies and heresay you insist on focusing on and repeatedly posting.
It's a shame that just because you think people should view the Expositor gang as credible, despite evidence to the contrary, you resort to put downs if they don't agree with you.
@@freethinker1026 Your problem is that you are too stupid to understand WHY "the Expositor gang" is credible. I will ONCE AGAIN relate the facts from credible historians (not lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists):
"Law, a prominent Nauvoo businessman, was solidly devoted to Smith until mid-1843. During the Bennett scandal, he quickly came to Smith's defense, reassuring the Saints that Church leaders did not condone 'spiritual wifery' or any such behavior. Smith held his counselor in such high esteem that he included him in the first small group of male initiates to the endowment ceremony in May 1842. And Law rendered much moral and financial support to a discouraged Smith when Missouri officials were attempting to extradite him on the Boggs case.
"'By early 1843, however, Law began to waver in his commitment to Smith. Initial difficulties between the two centered on business matters. . . .But a deeper source of the Laws' disaffection was their detestation of polygamy. In an 1887 interview William explained that Hyrum Smith had shown him the "revelation on celestial marriage" in the fall of 1843. "Hyrum gave it to me in his office," Law said, and "told me to take it home and read it. . . . He and Jane "were just turned upside down by it" . . . William took the document directly to the prophet and commented that it was in contradiction to the Doctrine and Covenants. Smith noted that the section on marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants was "given when the Church was in its infancy, when they were babes, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have some meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation," William wrote. "He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times in its favor.' ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 64-65)
"In early 1843 Austin [Cowles] . . . .played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young,
guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles and Parley P. Pratt. These men--the Nauvoo Stake President, his First Counselor, and an eloquent Apostle--would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism. Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent.
"Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on
polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council
on August 12. Three of the leading brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin
Cowles, and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is
remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also
remarkable that Marks, Cowles, and Soby would openly reject it. This was a
watershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history."---"In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Todd Compton, p. 549.
"The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law,
Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the
prophet......On May 23 he filed suit against the Mormon leader in Hancock
County Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith had been living with
Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October 12, 1843, to the day
of the suit. In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered
on May 26: '[The charges against me are false].....What a thing it is for a
man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can
only find one.....[I can prove them all perjurers.]' As polygamy was illegal
under US law, Smith had little choice but to repudiate the practice. But as is often the case with secret policies that are denied publicly, Smith's credibility would later suffer.
"Realistically he must have understood that 33 or more marriages could not be kept a secret forever, and that when they became known the gulf between his public statements and private practice would come back to haunt him."
(In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pp. 476-477.)
"Undoubtedly, Austin soon saw that he could not function as a Church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the High Council minutes, "President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Counselor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council." Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin "was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo." After resigning his presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place." . . . Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed President and selected Austin Cowles as his First Counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was "cut off" from the main LDS Church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the "Nauvoo Expositor," the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the "Expositor" press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that
led to his martyrdom.' ("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," pp. 549-50)
Here are William Law's personal journal entries in which he recorded his months-long effort to persuade Smith to renounce and abolish polygamy:
January 8, 1844: I thank God that he opened my understanding to know between truth and error, in relation to plurality & community of wives, and that I had the fortitude to tell Joseph that it was of the Devil and that he should put it down & I feel that I have opposed a base error and that the eternal God is on my side, and if I am persecuted it is because I vindicate principles of virtue and justice, not that I wish to injure any man, but I love the truth, and hate to see the virtuous destroyed and brought down into corruption and vice, and finally cast upon the world as unclean"
March 29, 1844: Hyrum smith was here a few days ago. He beg’d for peace; we told him of the corrupt operation which had been practiced upon us; he could not deny it, but said he was sorry as we had always been good friends to him and Joseph and had done much good for the church &c &c. I told him I was ready for an investigation before the Conference, and that I would bring their abominations to light; he said there would not be an investigation before [the] Conference, that they wanted peace. I told him then to cease their abominations, for they were from hell & that I knew it. He said they were not doing anything in the plurality of wife business now, and that he had published a piece against it; when I came to examine the piece refered to I found that it amounted to this, that no one should preach or practice such things unless by revelation (of course through Hyrum or Joseph). I told Hyrum that we stood on the defensive, we would defend the truth, we would defend ourselves both in character and in person.
May 13, 1844: This day Sidney Rigdon came to my house and said that he came fully authorized to negotiate terms of peace. I told him to make his proposition. He said it was that if we would let all difficulties drop that we (Wilson Law, my wife Jane Law, R. D. Foster and myself[)] should be restored to our standing in the Church and to all our offices, and they would publish it in the papers. We told him that we had not been cut off from the Church legally, and therefore did not ask to be restored. He said that, he knew the proceedings were illegal and very wrong, and said they would publish that fact to the world if we won’t be satisfied. He said they wanted peace. I told him that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of the plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell; to acknowledge also that he had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman, and that the persecution against me and my friends was unjust; if Smith and his followers will entirely cease from their abominations and fully undeceive the people as to those things, then I would agree to cease hostilities, otherwise we would publish all to the world.
End quotes. If, after reading this documentation, you still believe that "the Expositor gang" are not credible, you will be telling us that you are an unhinged, incorrigible fanatic. You will be telling us that your brain functions the same way as the people who believe the conspiracy theory that Paul McCartney was killed in a car wreck in 1967, and that he has been impersonated by an impostor all of these years. In other words: YOU'RE AS NUTTY AS A FRUITCAKE.
Great presentation. This helps to clarify a lot of the confusion I've have surrounding section 132. Thank you!
Thank you for this fantastic work, Rob. #IBelieveJoseph
“I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.” - Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 331)
Awesome!!! Thank you for sharing that!!!! 🙏🙏🙏👏
I just found your channel. Brother, thank you for your work. I can tell you extremely thorough so your work will be an incredible resource to me and others. I am so optimistic to see what is happening with free thinking Mormons. I felt alone in this view for so long.
You’ve answered the one question that had me puzzled: how the Nauvoo Expositor affidavits could have referred to ideas that showed up in 132. Thanks for your complex research!
I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted on this comments section.
@@randyjordan5521you’ve posted trillions of comments here, sorry if nobody cares enough to look through them all
@@zrosix2240 I'm sorry that you're too lazy or dumb to understand or appreciate learning accurate historical information. I assume that you'd prefer to remain ignorant.
Thank you Rob. Everyone in the church should be required to watch this.
But Old Joe married two 14 year old girls!
@@TheOGProtestantMormon Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted on this comments section.
We must remember that taking one's agency by force, is taking the role of Satan upon us. It is anti Christ and against Christ's plan to be agents unto ourselves. We must be able to choose light and darkness for ourselves.
because that's true agency
from the church's Gospel Topics Essays
anybody have any idea how many wives the church says Joseph had?
I just finished watching all your videos on this channel from first to last. With the help of your videos, plus those of Michelle Stone, Gwendolyn Wynne and others, i find myself firmly in the camp of "Polygamy Deniers" (the label I first heard from Jacob Hanson that i now wear proudly). I was saddened by how you were treated by your local leadership, particularly your Stake President. I wonder if that's what awaits the rest of us who are beginning to see the deception that we've been taught, in my case for 73 years? We shall see. Keep up the good work. Looking forward to additional content.
@@ChristianRescueWhen I said "... and others..." Mormon Rescue is one that is included.
Yes, Mormon Rescue is excellent
If you're a "Joseph Smith polygamy denier," you're a "historical fact denier."
@@randyjordan5521 the Holy Ghost has always told me that Joseph Smith only had one wife and I know that no one can have a testimony of polygamy. If you believe in polygamy you deny the Spirit.
@@glych002 OMG dude, instead of continuing to display your ignorance, do yourself a favor and just study the history.
The following statements were written by some of the people whom Joseph Smith personally introduced the doctrine of plural marriage, and they opposed it and sought to expose it and get it abolished out of the church:
"We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph
Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms;
which we verily know and are not accordant and consonant with the
principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles; and for that purpose, and
with that end in view, with an eye single to the glory of God, we have
dared to gird on the armor, and with God at our head, we most solemnly
and sincerely declare that the sword of truth shall not depart from the
thigh, nor the buckler from the arm, until we can enjoy those glorious
privileges which nature's God and our country's laws have guarantied
(sic) to us -- freedom of speech, the liberty of the press, and the
right to worship God as seemeth us good."
(William Law, Francis Higbee, "Nauvoo Expositor", June 7, 1844.
"I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.-And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines. WM. LAW"---"Nauvoo Expositor", June 7, 1844.
"I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above affidavit of my husband, it sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives that one at a time, in this world, and in the next, it authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under condemnation before God.
JANE LAW"---"Nauvoo Expositor", June 7, 1844.
"Forasmuch as the public mind hath been much agitated by a course of procedure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by a number of persons declaring aginst certain doctrines and practices therein, (among whom I am One,) it is but meet that I should give my reasons, at least in part, as a cause that hath led me to declare myself. In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counsellor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws. And further deponent saith not.
AUSTIN COWLES."---"Nauvoo Expositor," June 7, 1844.
"I thank God that he opened my understanding to know between truth and error, in relation to plurality & community of wives, and that I had the fortitude to tell Joseph that it was of the Devil and that he should put it down & I feel that I have opposed a base error and that the eternal God is on my side, and if I am persecuted it is because I vindicate principles of virtue and justice, not that I wish to injure any man, but I love the truth, and hate to see the virtuous destroyed and brought down into corruption and vice, and finally cast upon the world as unclean"---William Law personal journal entry, January 8, 1844.
"Hyrum smith was here a few days ago. He beg’d for peace; we told him of the corrupt operation which had been practiced upon us; he could not deny it, but said he was sorry as we had always been good friends to him and Joseph and had done much good for the church &c &c. I told him I was ready for an investigation before the Conference, and that I would bring their abominations to light; he said there would not be an investigation before [the] Conference, that they wanted peace. I told him then to cease their abominations, for they were from hell & that I knew it. He said they were not doing anything in the plurality of wife business now, and that he had published a piece against it; when I came to examine the piece refered to I found that it amounted to this, that no one should preach or practice such things unless by revelation (of course through Hyrum or Joseph). I told Hyrum that we stood on the defensive, we would defend the truth, we would defend ourselves both in character and in person."---William Law personal journal entry, March 29, 1844.
"This day Sidney Rigdon came to my house and said that he came fully authorized to negotiate terms of peace. I told him to make his proposition. He said it was that if we would let all difficulties drop that we (Wilson Law, my wife Jane Law, R. D. Foster and myself[)] should be restored to our standing in the Church and to all our offices, and they would publish it in the papers. We told him that we had not been cut off from the Church legally, and therefore did not ask to be restored. He said that, he knew the proceedings were illegal and very wrong, and said they would publish that fact to the world if we won’t be satisfied. He said they wanted peace. I told him that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of the plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell; to acknowledge also that he had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman, and that the persecution against me and my friends was unjust; if Smith and his followers will entirely cease from their abominations and fully undeceive the people as to those things, then I would agree to cease hostilities, otherwise we would publish all to the world."---William Law personal journal entry, May 13, 1844.
"On Thursday evening we gave the history of Nauvoo, and the events that led to the death of the Smiths, which, of course, we traced to the introduction of the spiritual wife system; for all that know any thing about it, that it was the introduction of that system which led to the death of the Smiths, and that if that system had not been introduced, they might have been living men to-day."---Sidney Rigdon, March 15, 1845.
"They introduced a base system of polygamy, worse by far than that of the heathen; this system of corruption brought a train of evils with it, which terminated in their entire ruin. After this system was introduced, being in opposition [to] the laws of the land, they, had to put truth at defiance to conceal it, and in order to do it, perjury was often practiced. This system was introduced by the Smiths some time before their death, and was the thing which put them into the power of their enemies, and was the immediate cause of their death."---Sidney Rigdon, June, 1846.
This was well presented 👌. I'm a very active member and I love the gospel with all my heart!
I have always struggled with the polygamy "doctrine".
Section 132 teaches that women are either breeding cattle, prizes for "righteous" men, servants to be ruled over.
Between saying that David and Solomon were justified in sin and God gave all those wives and concubines to them for their righteousness is so devaluing.
I can see how Satan uses those words to pierce the hearts of women and cause them to leave the church and indeed it has. It's also nice to hear a guy talk about this. Every church history dude is pro polygamy with the exception of Don Badly who wishes it didn't happen.
I think with the teaching we've been trained to believe our whole lives men are looking forward to all "playtime" in the next because that's what they think they'll get🤦♀️🤦♀️.
Thanks for all your hard work on this video.
I'm finding relief and peace as the tricks of men in those days are being exposed.
I still have a solid testimony of the gospel. Just not that part.
An incredible and clear compilation of the beginnings of D&C 132. Keep up the amazing work!
I would love it if the High council could remove all lingering elements of spiritual wifery.
I'd like to thank all the brothers and sisters in this video group for helping me navigate this issue . Indeed there is much more to this than meets the eye. I indeed can support the principal with logic and scripture however the spirit imo can direct me otherwise. thank you brothers and sisters in this group. You know who you are . I am impressed with Rob's work and Denver's work regarding this issue. Thank you.
@@jerrodwertman6979 I believe in multiple mortal probations also. Its very sound doctrine. The quandaries' and questions all have answers and the answers are doozies and that is why the doctrine is not taught. The things of eternity are very complex and weighty. We can hypothesize answers to those questions but since the answers to the follow up questions are only hypothesis, that is why the foundation doctrine is discouraged. The answers to those questions become unbelievable. Ascertaining the truth of a doctrine does not include answering the questions related to it (we will not know all those answers). We have to know that. Being stumped if a doctrine is true, does not mean the doctrine is not true. Have you looked at the arguments for mmp. I have. I'm no expert but I distinctly remember looking at the logistics behind it and it seemed very solid. I've no issue with it my friend. ty for your comment brother. There is even biblical references for the belief being existent in the NT. I am not skilled enough to be the presenter tho. You will need to look it up lol.
I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted on this comments section.
@@randyjordan5521 will definitely check it out. ty my friend.
Denver Snuffer posted on his blog a statement and reference to this video in regard to finding truth. Indeed after reviewing this video closely I admit to the compelling position of Denver Snuffer, and Rob Fotheringham that my original position is not so cut and dry. I am still seeking but acknowledge the struggle in this regard. I would suggest deep understanding of any polygamists or believers in its principal in regards to including or excluding them due to their positions. Much false reasoning is used to condemn polygamy however the evidence presented here does tend to cause one to pause regarding the mainstream view that Joseph taught it secretly. Thank you brothers for your hard work.
I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted in this comments section.
It is interesting that the Nauvoo temple was burned down, and then later a tornado came and wiped it away down to the foundation stones. It’s also interesting because there are rumors that Brigham Young changed the dedication date from April 6 to another date which has masonic meanings. Also, it seems Brigham Young may have also had a secret dedication the day before the dedication. Also, there was an architecture change to the design of the temple after Joseph’s death, by Brigham’s cousin, or nephew, I can’t remember.
And then Brigham had the Nauvoo temple burnt to the ground so that Emma and her family could not enjoy it. Can BYU be renamed????
Let me throw away the greasy monkey wrench into the works. The only temple ever acceptable to God was Kirkland… a very simple building. The great in spacious buildings are an abomination in the side of the Lord.. D&C 132:16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. 18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death-21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation. D&C 50 6 But wo unto them that are deceivers and hypocrites, for, thus saith the Lord, I will bring them to judgment.
7 Behold, verily I say unto you, there are hypocrites among you, who have deceived some, which has given the adversary power; but behold such shall be reclaimed; D&C 123: 7 It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity.
8 It is an iron yoke, it is a strong band; they are the very handcuffs, and chains, and shackles, and fetters of hell.
9 Therefore it is an imperative duty that we owe, not only to our own wives and children, but to the widows and fatherless, whose husbands and fathers have been murdered under its iron hand;
10 Which dark and blackening deeds are enough to make hell itself shudder, and to stand aghast and pale, and the hands of the very devil to tremble and palsy.
Should be anyway. I think the church should sell it @@litlacorns
I think by now it's clear that Joseph Smith was a good man and was likely called of God to do some things. The most important being the work he did with bringing the book of mormon to light. And let remember that the book of mormon is and was only ever supposed to be a companionship book to the Bible. Not the end-all be-all. Too many in the church have "wrested" the Bible and lowered it down to an inconsequential book only to be referenced when it suits the topic. The church today is completely apostate and is acting as a tentacle of the beast. And it's been so ever since Joseph's murder. It's nice to have such an intellect helping people to see these truths and to see past the lies.
Yes. Totally righteous but he and Emma lived their lives out together and he died as prophesied on Valentines Dsy of 1891 as proved here:
ruclips.net/video/7nUoyrjwliU/видео.html
Amen!
how easily are you people led, the priesthood was never to be taken away again, B. Young couldn't have done what Bro. Joseph did and vice versa. It's interesting that some who fashion themselves to know more after reading these papers are going to then try to lead us away from certain beliefs. It all gets sorted out. Polygamy came about for a reason and it last a very short time, it brought many more souls to Utah and so we have still a decent state of Utah, people raised for generations in goodly homes. The BOM is true and the church was being established with many things going on, temples were built, sacrifices were made in the middle of it, friends who lost money in the banking system, turned away from Joseph and some wanted to take his life. His poor wife suffered so much and basically couldn't stand Brigham who was always taking her husband away, so she did join with the others, and there was a split. By their fruits. When I think of the blessing of what J. S. said that the Holy Spirit would pour out intelligence on mankind and I look at all of the inventions and patents from a small church in terms of churches, all of those who contributed to modern inventions of so many kinds, we see that since 1830 so many inventions have occurred. Even with mistakes, B. Young did his job as a prophet, he could mean it was said, but he did his job and and loved Joseph so much, that Brigham died the last words he said was Joseph's name uttered a few times. The Kingdom of God has been established with those with priesthood who are compelled to do the right things and follow by revelation. Imaging a man of almost 100 years old, with a sharp mind conducting things and taking down little notes as he wakes early in the morning. Instead of concentrating on these so called mistakes and such, it would behoove people to stick with the program at hand, attend meetings reading the BOM, the intricate profound book is what made me realized their was a God and so I was baptized age 21 in 1973, I've seen many things happen in those years regarding the church. And now with youtube I see people who are so fixated on trying to prove to others of their opinion and have actual followers. Instead of following this guy, try following the program set out for us, read the papers and think for yourself, you can do it. Remember in the last days, even the very elect if it were possible can be fooled. My testimony is based on having my own revelation, and feeling love and warmth enter my room, and an audible voice telling me I needed to be baptized and join the church if I wanted to be happy in this life, at that time, I wanted to try everything, I am so glad the Father intervened and then I used my own agency to choose to accept that. It is a burden to not live what you know is true, or do a half way, it is a burden and you can't burn that candle on both ends. Polygamy was for the few that understood it at first, and many wanted to sealed to Joseph for future ties in the next life, I certainly understand that. Brigham had several wives, but they did not all bare children simply because they wanted to be married in name only. Trying to think for those people in the 1800's when you really did not understand all of those thing and fill in with your own thoughts as this guy is doing, Fotheringham, it's very serious and can basically lead you away, next thing you know, you'll be questioning the BOM as some intellects have done. I got personal revelation without even understanding what that was and what the Holy Spirit's role was. If you don't get that testimony and start the business of dissecting these papers, you might find yourself in a place that is not desirable what you go to meet with Christ who will judge us, and that would be very uncomfortable. You've got time to get it right, you don't have to fashion yourself as a modern day intellect regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ, or try to second guess what was meant, and then try to lead others to your way of thinking, I mean, you can do that, but seriously there is a big world out there that can be explored and taking your time to do that you'll learn things and then you'll forget about this stuff. There are no lies to fix or for you to explain to others, anything that is in question, is not big enough for you to start rewriting things and then starting your own little sect taking you away from the reality of having a prophet to help guide, and other leaders.
@@donnavaughn9409 #delusional #brainwashed #vaccinated
He has 34 wives and he married two 14 year girls., Emma caught him in the barn with Helen Mar Kimball have sex. LOL!
Whether or not polygamy was started by Joseph or Brigham, we may never know for surety, but is polygamy even of God????
That's a resounding NO, as other Christian denominations seemed to have figured that out years ago.
Polygamy is not of God, but an abomination.
So why did Joseph have more than 1 wife? I am so very confused about all of this.
@@Aquestion1690He didn’t. People practicing polygamy used him as a scapegoat.
This is amazing work. I wish I could get all my friends and family to at least listen to these facts and decide who they're going to believe: Brigram or Joseph.
Right ! unfortunately many a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. may light break forth among those who sit in darkness even the fullness of the gospel and dispel all disputations, precepts of men and false doctrines among the scattered children of Zion.
I tried, they are too stiff necked to watch it, I have found that those on sandy foundations seldom watch and those that love the high seats are quick to condemn those that listen to the Spirit.
It's so clear. Well done. Thanks!
Thank you for the content. Very excellent work! You are very much appreciated. So sad to see Bro Joseph's name had for bad among those who should have been friends.
I have been studying the history of temple endowment and wonder if you had any access to conflicting documents about what was or was not revealed. I would argue that the Kirtland endowment was a higher spiritual manifestation than what was received at Navoo. Appreciate any thoughts you have.
I think about the thousands upon thousands of people who have not only lost their faith in the restoration but in Jesus Christ and even God because of the teachings of the LDS church and their destructive polygamy narrative.
This is so helpful as always. I'll believe Joseph over Brigham since literally every other doctrine Brigham introduced has been thrown away (among many other reasons).
Amen! Look how Church authorities had to walk back the damnable doctrine of Blood Atonement, which is blatantly anti-Christ. Then there was the Adam-God theory, another blasphemous contrivance of Brigham Young. And let's not forget his most egregiously false concoction: the Priesthood ban for black men. All three of those corrupt "doctrines" were so demonstrably false they had to be discarded, albeit not nearly as quickly as they should have been. So, as for me, I am more than happy to relegate section 132 to the same pile of rubbish where all of Brigham's other nonsensical, self-serving, and frankly abusive "revelations" reside.
I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted on this comments section.
@@randyjordan5521You seem to be showing up everywhere and imo you’re kicking against the pricks. Sorry, but it’s looking more and more like Joseph was an honest monogamous man much to your dismay. You can’t explain away the spiritual confirmation many of us have on the matter and now evidence is showing to support it.
@@BadA_patriot Rather than depending on "spiritual confirmation", how about you just read the historical documentation I've provided.
Members of the Church of Scientology rely on "spiritual confirmation" for their belief that evil spirits called Thetans are inhabiting their bodies and causing them harm. Scientologists believe in that just as strongly as you believe that Joseph Smith was monogamous. So you might wanna try basing your life on actual facts sometime.
The revelation on plural marriage, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, emerged partly from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. Latter-day Saints understood that they were living in the latter days, in what the revelations called the “dispensation of the fulness of times.”5 Ancient principles-such as prophets, priesthood, and temples-would be restored to the earth. Plural marriage, practiced by ancient patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, was one of those ancient principles.6
The same revelation that taught of plural marriage was embedded within a revelation about eternal marriage-the teaching that marriage could last beyond death. Monogamous and plural marriages performed by priesthood power could seal loved ones to each other for eternity, on condition of righteousness.7
The revelation on marriage stated general principles; it did not explain how to implement plural marriage in all its particulars. In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith married additional wives and authorized other Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage. The practice was introduced carefully and incrementally, and participants vowed to keep their participation confidential, anticipating a time when husbands and wives could acknowledge one another publicly.
So I recently purchased the original D&C and you're right!! There is no such teaching about polygamy. In fact, the only time it's mentioned is to warn against it and how it's the work of the devil. There is no such teaching as 132. That section shouldn't even be anywhere near doctrine of God. It's against everything he taught and makes him a liar.
So grateful for your work
The LDS church has taken an honest and good man and turned him into a monster. So sad. Excellent work!
@@Thecanadianzealot That is really a great question. The "church" made him in my opinion. Without doing so there would be no power structure and without a power structure you can't have a "church" as people understand it today. I think it goes without saying that the structure we have today is not what Christ taught in the Book of Mormon.
Exactly now read Isaiah 24 and D&C 1
Not knowingly. Its hard to explain away hundreds of testimonies.
@@bradleyhowell4155 Sadly it is easy to explain away hundreds - actually thousands - of testimonies. You presume that feelings, which are defined by the LDS church as "witnesses" trump facts and reality. And, that they are somehow unique in defining truth. You see, other churches receive witnesses. Cult members receive spiritual witnesses of truth. Warren Jeff's followers have testimonies. Some of their testimony meetings used to be online - you couldn't tell you were listening to a polygamists' sacrament meeting other than the dresses and hairdoos. Feelings are that - feelings.
Thank you for doing this research. So many of us appreciate it very much!
Always look forward to your videos
thank you for spending the unimaginable amount of time uncovering these docs! i feel the strongest evidence against d&c 132 is in Isaiah 24:5...it was changed by evil men...d&c 101....JST Matt 21:50-55...the wicked husbandmen will meet brother Joseph again...anxiously looking foward to that great and terrible day
Thank you for the time and effort you put into your videos. You mentioned the land deeds but pretty much glossed over it with a comment it was Brigham's fault. I don't doubt that you're right, however there are those that believe this is a smoking gun proving Joseph Smith practiced polygamy by tying the granting of these deeds to his so called wives. Is there additional information other than what you stated?
I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted in this comments section.
Can we now begin again the True Church and see it to the end.
I think it is important to watch opposing views on this subject and there are plenty of videos on youtube that contradict so many people's truth claims. Thanks for your detailed work. I have more questions as I further investigate this subject. The concept of sealing other women to yourself for the next life is still offensive to women and most fair minded men. I totally agree that polygamy can't be supported especially D&C as coming from a loving God. I wish the church would be honest and remove 132 and take the practice of sealing multiple women to one man for the next like, from the church. Gordon B. Hinkley said on Larry King Live that Polygamy was never doctrinal.
Thank you for all the effort you have put into your videos . If it weren’t for people like yourself many of us would never know the truth.
I found the full script from that interview and unfortunately he didn't actually say that in that way. He explains in a general conference talk that living polygamy NOW is not doctrinal because according to the doctrine of our day, God has discontinued the practice FOR NOW, but that it was ok before. I was disappointed to find that clarification. :/
@momotsukii The "was okay then not now" is just how we've been programmed our whole lives. Many people were angered by Hinkley's statement back then so of course they're going to change it.
Why why would the Church cover this up??? This leaves me full of anger.
H.H. Bancroft has a book called History of Utah. In his book he states that Brigham Young appears to have written the Prophecy, and backdated it to the time of Joseph 1842 he says. William Dixon, in his book, titled New America, also had a similar sentiment. Interesting stuff. Dixons book was written in 1867 and Bancroft wrote his book in 1889
Except the historical record shows otherwise, I guess that can be ignored because you found people who wrote books
@@BrianTerrill I do not use church sources. So yes, I did find people that wrote books, and a lot of them. We do not believe the church in ANYTHING they say. So why would we believe what they write? Again, I do not use church sources of any kind on this channel. Thank you for your comment, like and subscribe to the channel.
@@TheMormonAtheist that just shows a deep bias, how can a person have credibility with such a bias?
And you didn't publish this video under the title Mormon Atheist, that's deceptive
@@BrianTerrill ALL my videos are published under The Mormon Atheist. Idk what you’re talking about? There is no bias. I am LDS. I just go to outside sources. But I see your bias, loud and clear.
@@BrianTerrill You are not commenting on one of my videos. You are commenting on a comment I made on someone else’s video…. Lol
Well done Rob. Keep going!
Someone needs to make a case on a larger platform, such as Mormon Discussions, Radio Free Mormon, or Mormon Stories.
This is sorely needed, and it seems Michelle Stone had a chance but allowed things to go personal.
It’s all controlled. Church sponsored.. the stronger truth is that Joseph Smith lived until the good old prophesied age of 85: ruclips.net/video/7nUoyrjwliU/видео.html
I forwarded this video to Bill
@@mattenger7064 Make sure you also send him the prior video. They go together.
Those dudes are cowards They wanted Michelle to do all the research for them give them all the answers before the discussion, wanted it on there show, then wanted a private meeting that they wanted to turn into a recording so they could edit it without her having the ability to record as well. They kept moving the goal post because they didn’t want it to happen.
I think Michelle is getting back on track, just momentarily got distracted by the detractors, as happens to all of us at times:)
The last 2 or so episodes have been fantastic, hope you didn't miss them!
Yeah that’s a no brainer, but I believe there are a number of problems in the D&C Rob you have done so much to bring truth to the forefront. Thanks!!
can someone post a link to the full JST? i did not realize that the JST from the church has excluded some verses...red flag...i have searched for the full version with no success...please help
Wouldn't the fact that the kirtland temple wasn't a temple... but just a chapel which is all Joseph ever called it? Also... we have the sealings being loosed in this passage:
2 Nephi 31: 17 There is nothing which is secret
save it shall be revealed; there is
no work of darkness save it shall be
made manifest in the light; and there
is nothing which is sealed upon
the earth save it shall be loosed.
Hi Rob, My husband and I enjoy your work. There is a series of books you would really appreciate. They are very well researched and documented. They support Joseph Smith as a prophet and his teachings. They absolutely support the idea that Brigham brought polygamy into the church. 3 volumes available online called JosephSmith Fought Polygamy by Richard and Pamela Price. 4th Volume due early 2026.
So helpful, thank you…
I'm from Perú. Thanks You.
Rob, is there a way to get a copy of the PowerPoint presentations you use in your videos??
Thank you for your wonderful work! Is there any way to reach you? I would love your thoughts on a few subjects that still give me pause. 1) authenticity/translation of the PofGP, Kirtland banking crisis and plagiarism(s) in the BofM? Much has been written on these topics and still trouble me regarding Joseph himself.
Some very good info here. Note that you erred, however, by saying one of the affidavits in the eExpositor was from William Marks. That is incorrect. William Marks had not left the Church and did not write an affidavit in the Expositor.
He said William Law wrote the affidavit in the Expositor, not William Marks.
William Marks was excommunicated by the new regime because he would not "get in line" with the new program. But I think you said William Law... will have to relisten!
@@Kristy_not_Kristine William Marks was also well aware that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy. Marks was the Nauvoo Stake President, and he was present in the Nauvoo High Council meeting on August 12, 1843, wherein Hyrum Smith read the "revelation on celestial marriage" to seek the council's vote to add the document to church doctrine. Marks, Austin Cowles, and Leonard Soby opposed the proposal, so it was rejected. Cowles and Soby swore legal affidavits that the document which Hyrum read is the same text as D&C 132 today. After Joseph's and Hyrum's deaths, Marks related his experience of a few weeks before Joseph's death, Joseph confessed to Marks that plural marriage was wrong, that it would destroy the church, and he instructed Marks to begin excommunicating all church members (about 28 men and 50 women) whom Smith had secretly inducted into plural marriage. So when you combine all of those facts, there is no question that Joseph Smith originated, taught, and practiced polygamy.
The fact that the statements from William Law and Austin Cowles do NOT perfect correlate to D&C 132, while there is some overlap, lends to the credibility that there were multiple versions of the 1843 revelation floating around in 1844. The fact that the statements Hyrum and Joseph gave in June of 1844 correlate to Joseph's public sermon that past July, also lend more credibility to their defense that the 1844 Expositor revelation was a fake that was floating around.
LOL. Your theory is absolute nonsense. Joseph or Hyrum presented and explained the "revelation on celestial marriage' personally to Law and Cowles. Law's and Cowles' May 4, 1844 affidavits quote specific verbiage from the "revelation" which makes it absolutely clear that the document which Joseph and Hyrum presented to them is the same text as D&C 132 today, and that it authorized actual earthly plural marriage and extra-marital sexual relations. In addition, Law's personal journal entries from the period detail his five months' long effort to persuade Joseph to renounce and abolish plural marriage, to no avail. If, as you theorize, there were "multiple versions" of the "revelation," then the version that Law and Cowles were opposed to was the one which Joseph and Hyrum personally presented to them. In order for us to even entertain your wild theory, we have to believe that Law, Cowles, and other dissenters' objections to Joseph's teachings and practice was all due to some gigantic misunderstanding of what Joseph was actually teaching and practicing. Those men were among the very top leaders of the church, so it's nonsensical to posit that they somehow misunderstood Joseph's practice. In case you've never read William Law's 1887 account of those events, this might help clear up your misconceptions:
“What do you know about the revelation on polygamy?”
“The way I heard of it was that Hyrum gave it to me to read. I was never in a High Council where it was read, all stories to the contrary notwithstanding. Hyrum gave it to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it and then be careful with it and bring it back again. I took it home, and read it and showed it to my wife. She and I were just turned upside down by it; we did not know what to do. I said to my wife, that I would take it over to Joseph and ask him about it. I did not believe that he would acknowledge it, and I said so to my wife. But she was not of my opinion. She felt perfectly sure that he would father it. When I came to Joseph and showed him the paper, he said: ‘Yes, that is a genuine revelation.’ I said to the prophet: ‘But in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants there is a revelation just the contrary of this.’ ‘Oh,’ said Joseph, ‘that was given
when the church was in its infancy, then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is necessary to give them strong meat’ We talked a long time about it, finally our discussion became very hot and we gave it up. From that time on the breach between us became more open and more decided every day, after having been prepared for a long time. But the revelation gave the finishing touch to my doubts and showed me clearly that he was a rascal."
Obviously, William and Jane Law would not have been "turned upside down by" a document which Hyrum Smith gave him if that document was not the same as D&C 132 today. If Hyrum had given Law some different "authentic" document (according to your theory) which did NOT involve plural marriage and having sex and producing offspring with multiple women, William Law would have had nothing to object to or oppose. Law's personal journal entry of May 13, 1844 also sheds a lot more light on the situation:
"This day Sidney Rigdon came to my house and said that he came fully authorized to negotiate terms of peace. I told him to make his proposition. He said it was that if we would let all difficulties drop that we (Wilson Law, my wife Jane Law, R. D. Foster and myself[)] should be restored to our standing in the Church and to all our offices, and they would publish it in the papers. We told him that we had not been cut off from the Church legally, and therefore did not ask to be restored. He said that, he knew the proceedings were illegal and very wrong, and said they would publish that fact to the world if we won’t be satisfied. He said they wanted peace. I told him that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of the plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell; to acknowledge also that he had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman, and that the persecution against me and my friends was unjust; if Smith and his followers will entirely cease from their abominations and fully undeceive the people as to those things, then I would agree to cease hostilities, otherwise we would publish all to the world."
Since the historical evidence shows that Joseph Smith propositioned the wives of numerous other high-ranking followers, Law's statement here corroborates those other reports from multiple independently sources.
If, after reading Law's own contemporary account of what was happening, you still believe that Joseph Smith was teaching and practicing something other than actual plural marriage which involved having sex with people other than one's legal spouse, I suggest that you consult a mental health professional.
You didn't listen to the presentation at all. Law's statement doesn't correlate with 132. Nowhere in there does it command other men to take wives. So . . . Either Law is referring to a different version or fake that he saw, or he lied about what he saw to make it more outrageous.
If Hyrum gave it to him, whatever version Hyrum allowed him borrow isn't 132. Or he lied about Hyrum giving it to him.
@@PeterBrownscouts "You didn't listen to the presentation at all. Law's statement doesn't correlate with 132. Nowhere in there does it command other men to take wives."
OMG dude, you're apparently completely ignorant of Law's legal affidavit of May 4, 1844:
"I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith
did, (in his office,) read to me a
certain written document, which he
said was a revelation from God, he
said that he was with Joseph when it
was received. He afterwards gave
me the document to read, and I took
it to my house, and read it, and show-
ed it to my wife, and returned it next
day. The revelation (so called) au-
thorized certain men to have more
wives than one at a time, in this
world and in the world to come. It
said this was the law, and command-
ed Joseph to enter into the law. - And
also that he should administer to
others. Several other items were in
the revelation, supporting the above
doctrines."
I assume that you're also ignorant of Law's personal journal entries from 1844 in which he recorded his efforts to persuade Joseph Smith to renounce and abolish polygamy:
January 8:
"I thank God that he opened my understanding to know between truth and error, in relation to plurality & community of wives, and that I had the fortitude to tell Joseph that it was of the Devil and that he should put it down & I feel that I have opposed a base error and that the eternal God is on my side, and if I am persecuted it is because I vindicate principles of virtue and justice, not that I wish to injure any man, but I love the truth, and hate to see the virtuous destroyed and brought down into corruption and vice, and finally cast upon the world as unclean"
March 29: "Hyrum smith was here a few days ago. He beg’d for peace; we told him of the corrupt operation which had been practiced upon us; he could not deny it, but said he was sorry as we had always been good friends to him and Joseph and had done much good for the church &c &c. I told him I was ready for an investigation before the Conference, and that I would bring their abominations to light; he said there would not be an investigation before [the] Conference, that they wanted peace. I told him then to cease their abominations, for they were from hell & that I knew it. He said they were not doing anything in the plurality of wife business now, and that he had published a piece against it; when I came to examine the piece refered to I found that it amounted to this, that no one should preach or practice such things unless by revelation (of course through Hyrum or Joseph). I told Hyrum that we stood on the defensive, we would defend the truth, we would defend ourselves both in character and in person."
May 13: "This day Sidney Rigdon came to my house and said that he came fully authorized to negotiate terms of peace. I told him to make his proposition. He said it was that if we would let all difficulties drop that we (Wilson Law, my wife Jane Law, R. D. Foster and myself[)] should be restored to our standing in the Church and to all our offices, and they would publish it in the papers. We told him that we had not been cut off from the Church legally, and therefore did not ask to be restored. He said that, he knew the proceedings were illegal and very wrong, and said they would publish that fact to the world if we won’t be satisfied. He said they wanted peace. I told him that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of the plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell; to acknowledge also that he had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman, and that the persecution against me and my friends was unjust; if Smith and his followers will entirely cease from their abominations and fully undeceive the people as to those things, then I would agree to cease hostilities, otherwise we would publish all to the world."
If you read William Law's journal entries and his May 4, 1844 affidavit, and you still don't believe that he was referring to the document known as D&C 132 today, then you have some serious mental problems.
@@PeterBrownscouts "You didn't listen to the presentation at all. Law's statement doesn't correlate with 132. Nowhere in there does it command other men to take wives.
Either Law is referring to a different version or fake that he saw, or he lied about what he saw to make it more outrageous."
LOL. It sounds like you're also completely ignorant of Austin Cowles' May 4, 1844 affidavit. In case you're unaware of the chain of events, Cowles, Nauvoo Stake President William Marks, and High Councilor Leonard Soby were all in the High Council meeting of August 12, 1843, during which Hyrum Smith read the revelation on celestial marriage to seek the council's vote to approve the document as church doctrine. Those three men rejected the proposal, and Cowles, Soby, and four other councilors swore legal affidavits as to what Hyrum read to them. Here is Cowles' affidavit of May 4, 1844:
"Forasmuch as the public mind hath
been much agitated by a course of
procedure in the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints, by a
number of persons declaring against
certain doctrines and practices there-
in, (among whom I am one,) it is but
meet that I should give my reasons,
at least in part, as a cause that hath
led me to declare myself. In the lat-
ter part of the summer, 1843, the
Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the
High Council, of which I was a mem-
ber, introduce what he said was a
revelation given through the Proph-
et; that the said Hyrum Smith did
essay to read the said revelation in
the said Council, that according to
his reading there was contained the
following doctrines; 1st. the sealing
up of persons to eternal life, against
all sins, save that of sheding inno-
cent blood or of consenting thereto;
2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of
wives, or marrying virgins; that “Da-
vid and Solomon had many wives,
yet in this they sinned not save in the
matter of Uriah. This revelation
with other evidence, that the afore-
said heresies were taught and prac-
ticed in the Church; determined me
to leave the office of first counsellor
to the president of the Church at
Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not
teach or administer such laws. And
further deponent saith not."
It is obvious that Cowles was referring to the document known today as D&C 132, not some non-existent "fake" document which exists only in the minds of Rob Fotheringham and these other Joseph Smith polygamy deniers.
I assume you're also unaware that Austin Cowles' daughter, Annie Elvira, accepted the principle of plural marriage, and plural married Joseph Smith on June 1, 1843. That was another reason for Austin, being a good, moral, Christian man, to strongly oppose Smith's plural marriage practice, and join with William Law to publish the Nauvoo Expositor. Because Joseph Smith publicly denied teaching and practicing polygamy, and refused to renounce it and abolish it, Cowles and Law's entire effort was to force Smith to step down as church president and have a reform committee take control and get rid of polygamy so that the practice wouldn't destroy the church. So, if you deny that Joseph Smith taught or practiced polygamy, you are in intellectual denial of the very reasons that Law, Cowles, and other leaders dissented from Smith in the first place.
You would do yourself a big favor by reading the research of legitimate historians, rather than giving heed to fringe-element people with an agenda like Rob Fotheringham.
@@randyjordan5521 The Lord rebuke thee.
Good thing Joseph got the BOM out long before any of this. I think we’ve been struggling to catch up with it and live up to the gospel that was restored through it ever since it was published.
William Law's affidavits in the Expositor make it clear that Hyrum read what came to be 132 to the Nauvoo Council and then gave the revelation to William to take home.
Where was the time for Brigham to alter this in the Eastern states?
Also, what makes you think Brigham was capable of even writing it?
These questions deserve an answer.
@@phadrus and @jaredvaughan1665 According to Willard Richards' record, the day after the Expositor was published, at the Nauvoo City Council, Hyrum specifically addressed what he had read at the Nauvoo High Council - "that it was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days and had no reference to the present time." What was the question in regards to? Well, a few days later, Joseph also responded specifically to William Law's affidavit saying it was "the truth of God transformed into a lie," as well as to Austin Cowles' affidavit stating the revelation was an answer to inquiry referring to the passage in Luke 20 that "in the resurrection, men neither marry..."). Joseph's answer to the question was that "men must be married in view of eternity, otherwise...remain as angels only...," which also corroborates Joseph's sermon he gave the Sunday right after recieving the revelation on July 12, 1843.
No one is claiming that Brigham was acting alone in subverting the revelation received by Joseph Smith into plural marriage. But are you referring to Austin Cowles' affidavit for the High Council? Because William Law doesn't mention any High Council meeting in his affidavit. This is where I really appreciate the affidavits - even the ones from the temple lot case. What is the date for when Hyrum introduced the revelation at a High Council? When did Hyrum supposedly lend a revelation to the Laws? Most of all, for what purpose would Hyrum have introduced the revelation commanding plural marriage, AND showed it to the Laws in private without any instruction on maintaining confidentiality or secrecy for plural marriage, which would have been the most damning evidence of all? If it is claimed that Joseph preached publically against plural marriage, but privately taught and practiced it, the affidivits would have contained that most damning claim. But they don't, none of the affidavits separate what Joseph taught publically and privately while including a mandate to maintain confidentialliy.
I believe the Expositors were being fed the false principles of plural marriage by those in church leadership who were actually practicing it (William Clayton, Heber Kimball, Brigham Young, and more) before Section 132 was written. I mean, the leaders had until 1852 before Section 132 was even introduced by Brigham Young!
Amazing work!
At minute 7:26 you talk about Franklin D. Richards journal entry of what was being rumored. I've been trying to find the source for this. Do you have a link or other information about where this is found?
So....my question is this. If BY took the church left of center, is this still the "true" church? Each prophet since him validates him as a great prophet and claims DC: 132 as canonized.
I've always had a strong testimony of the gospel but, since I was a young girl, I knew that JS was not a polygamist. Just not in his character. At the same time, I've always had issues with BY. I've seen him as a racist and misogynist man who was harsh and rather cruel.
Anyone have thoughts that may help me sort this out in my heart?
Rob - Did you ever teach Spanish at BYU? I had a Spanish teacher there in 1994 who was definitely named Fotheringham, and I think even Rob Fotheringham. He had taken courses in linguistics and was doing a graduate degree.
Rob, If you get this message I would like to know your thoughts on the statement made my Franklin d. Richards quoting Joseph Smith "The earthly is the image of the Heavenly shows that is by the multiplication of lives that the eternal worlds are created......" What is this referring to, "multiplication of lives"?
Excellent video! Excellent sources
Thx Rob, another great presentation. Question I had was about the NE affidavits. You postulate that perhaps what the Laws and Cowles heard read to them could have been the fabricated revelation from BY and/or others but the entries say the Hyrum read the revelation to them in person at the Nauvoo HC meeting. Could you clarify as it doesn't seem that Hyrum would have read anything to them with the material they would later denounce? I could see them twisting the truth about the original but not encountering the substitute revelation as you say. Thx
" You postulate that perhaps what the Laws and Cowles heard read to them could have been the fabricated revelation from BY and/or others but the entries say the Hyrum read the revelation to them in person at the Nauvoo HC meeting."
Rob's theory is nonsensical because six men present in that High Council meeting testified that the document which Hyrum read is the same text as D&C 132 today. William Law and Austin Cowles cited verbiage from the document which Joseph or Hyrum personally presented to them. Brigham Young had NOTHING to do with it at all. Brigham Young is not even mentioned in the "Nauvoo Expositor" as having anything to do with being responsible for polygamy. In addition, William Law's personal journal entries from January 1844 until Joseph's death on June 27 make it absolutely clear that Joseph and Hyrum taught and practiced polygamy.
Here is the legal affidavit of one high councilor, Leonard Soby, who was in that August 12, 1843 high council meeting:
"Be it remembered that on the 23rd day of March, in the year 1886, before, Joshua W. Roberts, notary public for the City of Beverly, County of Burlington, State of New Jersey, Leonard Soby, of said city, county and state, was by me duly sworn, and upon his oath saith:
That on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, I was a resident of Nauvoo, Hancock County, State of Illinois, and being a member of the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was present at a meeting of said council at the time herein above stated; Thomas Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fullmer, William Huntington and others; when Elder Hyrum Smith, after certain explanations, read the revelation on celestial marriage.
I have read and examined carefully said revelation, since published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of said Church, and say to the best of my knowledge and belief it is the same, word for word, as the revelation then read by Hyrum Smith.
The deponent says further, that the revelation did not originate with Brigham Young, as some persons have falsely stated, but was received by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and read in the High Council by his authority as a revelation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Other members of the high council didn't agree that that had happened though? William Marks said that the teaching of polygamy was never read in the high council. I think he read the true revelation that they had received about "In view of eternity" perhaps?
Does that mean that the ceiling in the temple is actually not true? Because only Joseph and Hyrum had that authority?
This has always bothered me i love my wife i do not want to be without her And i want her to be my wife forever i hope that the Lord will grant me that gift like i said it really bothers me to know that after this life our marriage will be over😢
😂
@@streetsoftartaria ?
How do you know that? Do you really "know" that a loving God would separate you from your wife if you really love each other? I don't believe he would.
This is a serious concern as members of the church look at eternal doctrine from another perspective. John Lennox gave a spot on analogy that has stuck with me for awhile now. Imagine telling your wife, "I'll marry you on the condition that for the next 40 years, you cook from this cookbook exactly as it says, following all the instructions. Now if you 'keep these laws', I'll think about accepting you." We laugh because it seems ridiculous, but that's what we think the Lord offers us. Instead, He desires an eternal relationship with us now; it's part of His divine nature. Therefore, I believe He also desires for us to have eternal relationships with one another.
ruclips.net/video/xe9eg2G3tCk/видео.html
starting at 8:12
@@Kristy_not_Kristine no i do not i didnt mean to sound that way but does cause me concern
“In View of Eternity” is an interesting and telling phrase. To me, that phrase has reference to all eternal principles with respect to the character of God [See Lectures on Faith 7: 15-17]. When it comes to marriage, baptism, and priesthood ordinations, regardless of what the outward ordinance is, unless they are made with Lectures on Faith 15-17 in mind and heart they are of no effect and are nothing more than sounding brass. “THOUGH I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal” (New Testament | 1 Corinthians 13:1) This is what Lectures on Faith teaches. It is also what Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mt.
I don't think the number ten mentioned in verse 62 was ever meant to be construed as a limit. It is simply a hypothetical large number, meant to illustrate the idea that as long as the virgins are given to him by the law, it doesn't matter how many there might be. A lot of this stuff is rather unskillfully written, and it would have been clearer if whoever wrote it said "he could have any number of virgins given to him by this law, and still not be guilty of adultery," for example.
Of course not. It was Brigham-obviously. Anyone who honestly looks at it will discover that.
President Nelson has stated that there is a restoration taking place. He also declared Joseph to be our prophet of God. The Lord perhaps has a backup plan, as he always does, that when the Salt Lake Temple is complete, we will get to have these things restored.. just a thought.
Do not trust in deceptive words and say, "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD! - Jeremiah 7:4
Dang were subscribed to so many of the same people lol@@ElizabethRussell144
Doesn’t it bother you that he’s a polygamist?
I am confused now. In your video saying that Elijah did not come to Joseph in the Kirtland temple you said that there was no sealing power but here we are told that Hyrum could be sealed to his first wife. Please help me understand. Thanks.
If Brigham Young authored D&C 132 after Joseph's death, then why all the real-time language aimed at forcing Emma to comply? It was a mute point in 1852,
Because Emma Smith was writing books, contradicting Brigham Young, and Brigham Young was mad at Emma because he went to Emma and tried to force Emma to give over all the properties of the church to Brigham Young, which Emma owned.
The Nauvoo Expositor also uses some of the same language as 132. Of course, Brigham could have copied it. However why would he?
@@glych002 So your telling me BY was vindictive?
If you’ve ever read the original documents about things that Brigham Young did, you would know that he is extremely vindictive. You do realize that Brigham Young was in control of the Danites…
Though section 132 magically appeared out of Brigham's desk drawer in 1852 in SLC, Brigham had to "sell it" as a contemporary document from 1843. So, including (fabricated) content about and references to Emma was Brigham's attempt to add credibility and legitimacy to the doctored document. Excluding Emma from the document would have drawn unwanted scrutiny for Brigham's falsified document, whereas including her strengthened his ability to sell it to the saints in Utah.
@robfotheringham2289 I was just told you were excommunicated. how long ago and what was the reason? have you documented what happened anywhere?
Here's my take. Joseph Smith made the following prophecy:
"The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear; till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done."
Which Restorationist church is fulfilling that prophecy? The Church that followed the apostles- as imperfect as they were.
While Brigham Young introduced fallible doctrines: 1-Priesthood restriction 2-Blood Atonement 3-Adam-God 4-Potentially (the jury is still out for me) Plural Marriage.
All 4 of these have been repented of as a church. #4 may still need to more fully repented of, but as a whole, these are in the past.
So the question is, is God still with us, is this work still His? I cannot deny that God is still in this work. The Restoration is still continuing. I think the future is bright in the church. I think God is incredibly patient with us. He can do His own work. And He is obviously in the work of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints.
I know it's been nearly 2 weeks since you commented, but I agree. We don't have to leave the church, nor forget all the experiences we've had in it because we know polygamy was, is and always will be an abomination. The church is simply the vehicle for the gospel of Jesus Christ, filled with imperfect people. Even the primative church as organized by Jesus, occured at the pentacost. Unfortunately, there is no other church with more truth at this time. It is an ongoing restoration, and hopefully, we (individually and collectively as a church) will humble ourselves and repent. It is not the church of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Each of us can know truth, as Joseph did, for ourselves through study and prayer.
The problem with Joseph relating marriage sealing to baptisms for the dead, is that the Book of Mormon teaches all work for the dead is a dead work and a mockery before Christ the author and finisher of our faith. So even if Joseph didn’t receive Revelation 132 this Revelation and other Revelations stand in opposition to the BOM and the gospel message, doctrine of Christ. The law of the D&C is what superseded the gospel and Christ Doctrine way back 1834-35. We did the same thing the Jew where said to have done in the Book of Mormon, we despised the words of plainness and looked beyond the mark, sought for things we couldn’t understand.
This is amazing. I have been searching for YEARS! The Lord told me, ( As I was sitting in my Baptist church ) "You are going to fix the lies in the Book of Mormon. It is valuable and I need people to know the actual truth." For years, all I have found are people that believe the whole book is alive/flawless and those who have left. Now I know that there are those who know the Book of Mormon is necessary, but corrupt. Thank you! I may now start fixing what the Lord requires of me.
I’m confused. The D&C section 132 that’s spoken about in this video isn’t even in the Book of Mormon.
Error: William Marks did not provide an affidavit in the Expositor. Marks appears to have supported Smith’s anti-polygamy claims.
Would love to see what you have on those land deed frauds. Any great resources?
Could you post your source for the original Hyrum quote on polygamy from Apr 8, 1944? 13:15
Amen.
I have a question…what happened to the revelation that says if the prophet teaches falsehoods that the Lord will take them off the earth? Shouldn’t Brigham Young have been taken off the earth before he preached this false practice?
That was something said by Wilford Woodruff. Checkout out Michelle Stone 132 problems podcast she goes over this.
How the church has blessed someone's life doesn't change just because Brigham usurped power, lied about polygamy among other things, and wasn't a prophet. Brigham was called a lot of things in his day but prophet wasn't one of them as the people knew the 12 were voted to lead the church and later Brigham was sustained as the president of the church.
There are always comments asking what the truth means, if it means the restoration is false and all the leaders after Joseph were false. It's as if people don't think God is a powerful God who can do anything. The majority of the people who followed Brigham were good people who loved God and tried to do right, hence why only 20% of the members practiced polygamy despite Brigham's lies that you couldn't be exhalted without it. God doesn't abandon those who desire to follow him and he can right any wrong. I personally believe he did when Hyrum's son became leader of the church and finally ended polygamy. Each leader should be judged on their own merits not by what Joseph did and not by what Brigham did.
Well said👌. I have a strong testimony of the gospel that will not be moved but I know without a doubt through ponder and prayer that polygamy was not a practice called by God. But I agree that because of dedication and a desire to do right, God works through those willing to serve😊
Makes sense to me
@@phadrus It only makes sense to the ignorant!
@@GeorgeDemetz thanks for sharing your feelings
@@phadrus Look, the facts are these: Any credible historian, whether in the church or not, knows from all the facts evidence and documentation that Joseph had 30-40 wives! Brian Hales is recognized as the leading authority on this subject, so I would recommend videos by him. Also, even though we have no record I'd D&C 132 until years after Joseph received the revelation because Emma burned it, in the journals if one of Joseph's clerks there is evidence that he definitely received it and wrote it! It was during his translation of the Bible that he came upon this question, and after that is when he received the revelation to practice it! He was reluctant to do so and married some wives for eternity only. Eventually, he recounts that an angel came to him with a sword and demanded that he obey the commandment in full! I don't have time to expound in all the story and all the evidences that these true historians are well aware of, but I recommend that you see videos by Brian Hales and visit his website!!!
So is eternal marriage available today? Or gone with Joseph's martyrdom?
I believe Joseph of course. He was a proper and true dispensational profit of the most high God. The calling and duty of seed giver to this world like unto Adam & Abraham is laid only upon the heads of those most righteous and holy High priests holding the true High and Holy order of the Melchizedek priesthood after the order of the son of God. Joseph was one such person on whom this duty rested if he chose. For obvious reasons, he did not. I believe the Lord is saddened Emma nor Joseph could abide in this because seed of the seer is a choice seed. I believe everything in the church is about to change in the next year with regard to transparency and truth telling. Thank you for your excellent work. #davidicservant #endtimesservant #kingdavidaprince
Could you you please explain how Abraham was able to take Sarah’s handmaiden to wife? I’m sorry but to claim that Brigham and Heber was practicing polygamy behind Joseph and Hyrum’s back is ludicrous. What about Kimball’s daughter that did marry Joseph Smith?
You thank you so incredibly noisy and he did it for all the work you did to bring the truth thank you. God bless you.
So where is the original revelation on eternal marriage? Why wasn’t it prepared for the 1844 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants? Seems that they were hiding it. If that was really the extent of the revelation, as they said, why didn’t they just publish the revelation to prove that’s all it really said?
Read the 1835 D&C section 101, this would be the original revelation about eternal monogamous marriage.
@@davidwatts1791
When Joseph and Hyrum described the revelation on eternal marriage they said that it taught that those who had not entered into an eternal marriage would be single angels for eternity. It says that nowhere in section 101 of the 1835 D&C. So where is the revelation they referred to?
When a document is altered, it must be initials at each point where alterations are made, and is usually only accepted when it is altered by the original writer the document. If it is on initialed, and then re-signed on the date of the alteration, the original text of the document is the only thing of legal standing. These were false alterations, there is no requisite initialing, in the case of another person altering an original document, that is usually forbidden and unacceptable to anyone. Such a case exists in the autopsy report of Vincent Foster who was the president's private attorney who was found dead in Fort Marcy Park several years ago, work for Bill Clinton. Gunshot residue was ever found in the mouth, even though they were unasserted Bullet Hole in the roof of his mouth. There was never an exit wound but he did have a fractured skull. He also never found a bullet in his brain. There was what appeared to be a bullet hole at the base of the right side of his neck where his shoulder and the nape of his neck come together that looked like it had been fired them into the chest cavity but no tests were ever done on that. But several alterations had been done to the autopsy report, that man had not been initialized by the pathologist that did the autopsy. One of them was to cross out the reference to the Bullet Hole found at the base of his neck. Indicating that he had been murdered. A clearly AB sloppily altered document.
I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted in this comments section.
Is this an episode from "days of our lifes?" Sure sounds like politics 2023, I love it, I always like Joseph Smith, I trust him.the church members and exmos needs to look at there present leaders, who's the guilty party.
The Nauvoo Expositor uses some of the same language as the purported revelation we have as D&C 132. Brigham might have been clever and just copied it. However why would he do this and where did the Expositor text come from? Something was read in the Nauvoo High Council meeting, and this is highly likely to have been the source for the Expositor text.
Even if the Expositor just made that up then what about the other claims it made. The church was off the rails in 1844 and either Joseph was clueless, and things were out of control, or he was part of the problem.
Joseph sister has a diary and in it there was a meeting that she was at and Joseph Smith basically says that there are people up on the stage that have made a deal with the devil and the only people on the stage at the time were the 12 apostles Brigham included. Also, Brigham lead the Quorum of the 12 apostles to excommunicate one of the 12 while Joseph Smith was in jail. When Joe Smith got out of jail he came back and he’s called them Judas for doing such a thing and reinstated him back to the Quorum the 12.
The entire video is about answering this question.
@@PeterBrownscouts True, but this entire video is nonsense.
"Even if the Expositor just made that up then what about the other claims it made. The church was off the rails in 1844 and either Joseph was clueless, and things were out of control, or he was part of the problem."
Yes, these Joseph Smith polygamy deniers are forced to posit that all of those apostles and other high-ranking church leaders were practicing polygamy under Joseph's nose and against his teachings, but Joseph was totally ignorant of it. At that time, "God" was supposedly sending Joseph "revelations" about all sorts of trivial matters, but "God" didn't bother to tell Joseph that some 29 men and 50 women (according to the historical research) were engaged in a humongous secret free love cult. IN a legal affidavit, Sidney Rigdon's son John commented on the ridiculousness of that theory:
"As to the truth of the doctrine of polygamy being introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, deponent further says: Joseph Smith was absolute so far as spiritual figures were concerned, and no man would have dared to introduce the doctrine of polygamy or any other new doctrine into the "Mormon" Church at the city of Nauvoo during the years 1843 and 1844, or at any other place or time, without first obtaining Joseph Smith's consent. If anyone had dared to have done such a thing he would have been brought before the High Council and tried, and if proven against him, he would have been excommunicated from the Church, and that would have ended polygamy forever, and would also have ended the man who had dared to introduce such a doctrine without the consent of the Prophet Joseph.
"And deponent further says: Joseph the Prophet, at the City of Nauvoo, Illinois, some time in the latter part of the year 1843, or the first part of the year 1844, made a proposition to my sister, Nancy Rigdon, to become his wife. It happened in this way: Nancy had gone to Church, meeting being held in a grove near the temple lot on which the "Mormons" were then erecting a temple, an old lady friend who lived alone invited her to go home with her, which Nancy did. When they got to the house and had taken their bonnets off, the old lady began to talk to her about the new doctrine of polygamy which was then being taught, telling Nancy, during the conversation, that it was a surprise to her when she first heard it, but that she had since come to believe it to be true. While they were talking Joseph Smith the Prophet came into the house, and joined them, and the old lady immediately left the room. It was then that Joseph made the proposal of marriage to my sister. Nancy flatly refused him, saying if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all, and thereupon took her bonnet and went home, leaving Joseph at the old lady's house. Nancy told father and mother of it. The story got out and it became the talk of the town that Joseph had made a proposition to Nancy Rigdon to become his wife, and that she refused him. A few days after the occurrence Joseph Smith came to my father's house and talked the matter over with the family, my sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson also being present, who is now alive. The feelings manifested by our family on this occasion were anything but brotherly or sisterly, more especially on the part of Nancy, as she felt that she had been insulted. A day or two later Joseph Smith returned to my father's house, when matters were satisfactorily adjusted between them, and there the matter ended."
@@randyjordan5521 It certainly doesn't seem to make much sense. Someone holds Joseph as a prophet of God and then introduces their own revelations about polygamy and hides them from Joseph. Brigham was a monster in many ways, however I don't think he is that bold.
What do we do at this point? Ugh. Guess just hold tight til things get corrected?
Since everything else Joseph Smith ever produced is a fraud, the obvious and sensible thing to do is to reject all of Mormonism.
I think the best thing is to stop relying on church and build the relationship with Father God and His Son directly. Just like Joseph Smith did, just like followers of Jesus did in the beginning. The church may say or believe whatever they want, but no church can separate us from the love of God and Christ's spirit.
@@kahina937 Joseph Smith did not do any of what you wrote here. Joseph Smith was a fraud artist from the outset, who wrote a fake book and founded a fake religion for the purpose of victimizing people who believed in Christ.
I think so. People in Christ’s day saw the corruption of the money changers and Pharisees, just like people in the Book of Mormon were aware of secret combinations and corrupt leaders like King Noah and his priests. It’s the ones who stuck it out despite the corruption and stood for truth that were blessed-Anna and Simeon witnessed Jesus as an infant because they were serving in the temple. Christ specifically praised the widow who gave up her mite, even though He knew her tithing went to the “whited sepulchre” Pharisees. Abinadi and Alma the elder led the church back to truth instead of giving up on it. Samuel the Lamanite gave believers the 5-year timeline so they’d know when the Savior was born. As long as there are still righteous people in the church, it’ll survive. “They shall not be ashamed that wait for me.” ❤
Outstanding job. Now, how can you write the current Prophet and High Council to research for themselves, and fast and pray.
Then make a new doctrine specifically denouncing polygamy, and that it was never of God.
That alone would increase ACTIVE membership in the and Unit the factions, our cousins the RLDS, that always have Joseph the benefit of the doubt.
God always makes things work for our good.
I’m not LDS. Just interested since I married into it. My Father in law married wife #2 for eternity (first wife passed away). So he is an eternal polygamist and he is proud of it. His 2nd wife is happy about being a polygamist too. Your faith is still a polygamist faith just for eternity only. Whether Smith or Young started it just doesn’t really matter.
I am an LDS woman, and with research believe that the church’s understanding of plural marriage is imperfect. Agency is an eternal principle in the church, and God will not take away any woman’s agency.
Tradition makes people blind sometimes, and i feel this has happened with the church in this area.
No heaven would include someone you romantically love being sexually active with someone else. If there is any sexuality in eternal marriages, your father in law will have to choose between his wives.
It matters more than you understand.
@@kimbrown9451 He believes that he will be a polygamist in heaven and he believes that there are degrees within the celestial kingdom and that the highest degree is reached through polygamy. He is 86 and told me this directly. He believes that is the doctrine of his faith. I’m Catholic so all I do is listen to what he tells me. I don’t know if what he tells me matches current LDS doctrine? He thinks it does. For the record my wife really dislikes polygamy.
No, he’s not part of LDS faith. “Your faith” wouldn’t apply here. Most of his viewers aren’t either. At least not anymore. Did you realize how the whole video was about debunking the LDS narrative?
@@Zeett09 It matches LDS doctrine and practice, as uncomfortable as it sounds. The church still holds to eternal polygyny (more than one wife in heaven) as taught in Doctrine & Covenants section 132. However, no polyandry (more than one husband). In fact, current policy is that men can be sealed to more than one wife while alive (i.e., if one wife dies and he remarries or if he divorces and wishes to remarry), but a woman must have her former sealing canceled if she wants to be sealed with a second man in this life.
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.
How can this be the true church if the prophets after joseph died..it not restored if tainted with false doctrine...?
Where did this concept of a "true church" come from? The Lord's Church is a group of believers. Is it fair to think only those who are LDS can make it back to the Lord? If so, then the Lord would go against his own words as He has repeatedly stated He is no respecter of persons. Also, what does it mean to be a prophet of the Lord? In Moses, he started he wished all men would prophecy. We all have access to the gifts if the Spirit as we grow in our relationship with Jesus. Ask the Lord if BY is His prophet. The answer you may receive may surprise you. 😉
There’s so much truth in the church. But “the church is true” is a lie we have been taught so we don’t look very far into our questions.
The church has truth, and I love the message of the BOM more all the time, while also separating myself from the falsehoods.
I’ve come to realize the Book of Mormon is really telling us off. We have “transfigured the Holy word of God”.
2Nephi 28 is telling us off too.
I’m so thankful for these realizations so I can repent and refocus on my relationship with Christ.
There are numerous contemporary documents published during Joseph Smith's lifetime which make it perfectly clear that he originated and practiced polygamy. I suggest that you read the historical documentation I've posted on this comments section.
JS died in 1844. 132 published in 1852 = 8 years after his death.
Specific verbiage from the revelation on celestial marriage was quoted in numerous sources during Joseph Smith's lifetime. On August 12, 1843, Hyrum Smith read the revelation before the Nauvoo High Council to seek their vote to make it official church doctrine. Six men present in that meeting testified that the document which Hyrum read was the same as D&C 132 today. Here is the legal affidavit of one of them to that effect:
"Forasmuch as the public mind hath
been much agitated by a course of
procedure in the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints, by a
number of persons declaring against
certain doctrines and practices there-
in, (among whom I am one,) it is but
meet that I should give my reasons,
at least in part, as a cause that hath
led me to declare myself. In the lat-
ter part of the summer, 1843, the
Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the
High Council, of which I was a mem-
ber, introduce what he said was a
revelation given through the Proph-
et; that the said Hyrum Smith did
essay to read the said revelation in
the said Council, that according to
his reading there was contained the
following doctrines; 1st. the sealing
up of persons to eternal life, against
all sins, save that of sheding inno-
cent blood or of consenting thereto;
2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of
wives, or marrying virgins; that “Da-
vid and Solomon had many wives,
yet in this they sinned not save in the
matter of Uriah. This revelation
with other evidence, that the afore-
said heresies were taught and prac-
ticed in the Church; determined me
to leave the office of first counsellor
to the president of the Church at
Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not
teach or administer such laws. And
further deponent saith not.
AUSTIN COWLES."
And here's another:
"Be it remembered that on the 23rd day of March, in the year 1886, before, Joshua W. Roberts, notary public for the City of Beverly, County of Burlington, State of New Jersey, Leonard Soby, of said city, county and state, was by me duly sworn, and upon his oath saith:
"That on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, I was a resident of Nauvoo, Hancock County, State of Illinois, and being a member of the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was present at a meeting of said council at the time herein above stated; Thomas Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fullmer, William Huntington and others; when Elder Hyrum Smith, after certain explanations, read the revelation on celestial marriage.
"I have read and examined carefully said revelation, since published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of said Church, and say to the best of my knowledge and belief it is the same, word for word, as the revelation then read by Hyrum Smith.
"The deponent says further, that the revelation did not originate with Brigham Young, as some persons have falsely stated, but was received by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and read in the High Council by his authority as a revelation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
We need one about the origins of tithing. The changes over time. And how todays tithing is what we have done culturally, instead of listening or asking God.. There have been some highly detailed videos in favor of Joseph participating in polygammy lately. I do not think it is one we will know the truth about until Christ returns. However 2 areas we can more closely follow God today is tithing and the word of wisdom. Neither of which do we obey in the way God gave them to us. We have drawn our own lines and conclusions, like pharisees.
Hyrums talk on April 8 1844 is about spiritual wifery, that's John C Bennett's idea. I could easily say that his speech was a condemnation of Bennett's idea not section 132.
Also our prophets married more than once so is this eternal poltgamy???
at the 40:30 you have cited Jacob 2: 24 to support your case against polygamy. But you have conveniently have left out Jacob 2: 30 " For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." This verse clearly states that the Lord can also command polygamy to raise up seed.
At the 40:49 mark you quoted 1 Kings 15:5 JST. But that verse does not condemn David for polygamy.
It actually states he did right in the eyes of the Lord.. "save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite, wherein the Lord cursed him". David was condemned for adultery and murder, not for polygamy!
The preceding verses make clear that the Nephite nation was indeed established by the Lord to raise up seed to him; yet he commanded them to cease the practice of polygamy or face their destruction; and reiterated the commandment given to Lehi that they should have only one wife. A better reading of Jacob would be as follows:
“Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people otherwise (meaning, differently than was done in the OT)
They shall hearken unto these things: for behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people… etc.”
"I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. the revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.-And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines."
William Law
Why would William Law say he received a of copy the polygamy revelation from Hyrum, when it supposedly came from Brigham?
Throughout this video, Rob Fotheringham cites statements from Joseph and Hyrum Smith wherein they denied teaching or practicing polygamy. The thing that Rob and his fellow travelers such as Michelle Stone, Jeremy Hoop, and Whitney Horning can't get through their heads is that Joseph Smith started plural marriage as a small group of loyal, trusted insiders, and that he swore them to vows of secrecy. Smith called that group the "anointed quorum." Historians have identified about 29 men and 50 women as being inducted into polygamy during Smith's lifetime. Because polygamy violated the law of the land and of the LDS church, Smith knew that if his practice became public knowledge, he would be forced to step down as church president, and he would lose his power and his growing financial empire. So that is why he and Hyrum steadfastly denied the practice right up until their deaths. It was Joseph's and Hyrum's denials which spurred Smith's former counselor in the church presidency, William Law, Nauvoo High Councilor Austin Cowles, and other dissenters to publish a newspaper in which they exposed Smith's secret practice. So these people like Rob Fotheringham who don't believe that Smith had anything to do with polygamy are in intellectual denial of the very reasons why those men dissented from Smith and published their newspaper.
Below are some quotes I've compiled to illustrate how Smith and his polygamy initiates denied the practice.
"Fabricated stories designed to protect the [Nauvoo polygamous] individuals are seen elsewhere. Sidney Rigdon in the 18 June 1845 'Messenger and Advocate' reported that Parley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which church leaders should sustain Smith, advised that 'we must lie to protect brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.' Not only were church leaders willing to violate the law to promote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret practice of plural marriage. Sarah Pratt was not the only woman to suffer from this policy. The 27 August 1842 'Wasp,' for example, branded Martha H. Brotherton a 'mean harlot,' and Nancy Rigdon suffered the same treatment after she opposed Smith's polygamous proposals.....Jane Law, wife of Smith's counselor William Law, was also blacklisted for rejecting Smith's polyandrous proposal." ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 38-39.)
Note: It's relevant to understand that polygamous church leaders continued to deny teaching or practicing polygamy until 1852, which was eight years after the Smiths' deaths. This illustrates how seriously those people took their oath of secrecy which they had sworn to when being inducted into polygamy by Joseph years earlier.
The above quote mentioned Martha Brotherton, who was a young English convert who had only been in Nauvoo for only three weeks when, according to a legal affidavit she filed in July 1842, she was approached by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, who tried to intimidate her into becoming a plural wife of Young. Martha's account related how those men asked her to keep their proposition to her a secret:
“Well, then,” said Joseph, “what are you afraid of, sis? Come, let me do the business for you.” “Sir,” said I, “do let me have a little time to think about it, and I will promise not to mention it to any one.” “Well, but look here,” said he; “you know a fellow will never be damned for doing the best he knows how.” “Well, then,” said I, “the best way I know of, is to go home and think and pray about it.” “Well,” said Young, “I shall leave it with brother Joseph, whether it would be best for you to have time or not.”
“Well,” said Joseph, “I see no harm in her having time to think, if she will not fall into temptation.” “O, sir,” said I, “there is no fear of my falling into temptation.” “Well, but,” said Brigham, “you must promise me you will never mention it to anyone.” “I do promise it,” said I. “Well,” said Joseph, “you must promise me the same.” I promised him the same. “Upon your honor,” said he, “you will not tell[?”] “No, sir, I will lose my life first,” said I. “Well, that will do,” said he; “that is the principle we go upon. I think I can trust you, Martha,” said he. “Yes,” said I, “I think you ought.” Joseph said, “She looks as if she could keep a secret.”
Continued:
The satirical poem "Buckeye's Lamentation For Want Of More Wives," published on February 7, 1844, and reportedly authored by William Law's brother Wilson, detailed how Smith and his fellow polygamists denied their secret practice:
"This is the secret doctrine taught
By Joe and the red rams-
Although in public they deny-
But then ”tis all a sham.
They fear the indignation just,
Of those who have come here,
With hands thats clean and honest hearts,
To serve the Lord in fear.
"Thus, all the twelve do slyly teach,
And slyly practice, too;
And even the sage Patriarch,
Wont have untied his shoe:
For sure, ”twould be quite impolite,
If not a great disgrace,
To have a widow sister fair
Spit in a Prophet”s face!
"But Joe at snaring beats them all,
And at the rest does laugh;
For widows poor, and orphan girls,
He can ensnare with chaff,
He sets his snares around for all,-
And very seldom fails
To catch some thoughtless Partridges,
Snow-birds or Knight-ingales!"
Note: Emily and Eliza Partridge, Eliza R. Snow, and Martha McBride Knight have been identified by historians as Smith's known plural wives. All four women testified to their relationships with Smith after his death. This poem, published five months before Smith's death, could not have named those women if the author, reportedly Wilson Law, was not personally aware of them. In addition, William Law attempted to force Smith to step down as church president by filing legal charges against him of living in an open state of adultery with Maria Lawrence on May 23, 1844. So it's naively ridiculous for Rob Fotheringham to believe that Smith had nothing to do with polygamy, when the men who opposed his practice and worked to force him to abolish the practice were close insider eyewitnesses to Smith's activities and could name some of the women.
The Nauvoo Expositor, published on June 7, 1844, referred to Smith's culture of deceit:
"Many of us have sought a reformation in the church, without a public exposition of the enormities of crimes practiced by its leaders, thinking that if they would hearken to counsel, and shew fruit meet for repentance, it would be as acceptable with God, as though they were exposed to public gaze, but our petitions were treated with contempt; and in many cases the petitioner spurned from their presence and particularly by Joseph, who would state that if he had sinned, and was guilty of the charges we would charge him with, he would not make acknowledgment, but would rather be damned; for it would detract from his dignity, and would consequently ruin and prove the overthrow of the Church."
The Expositor also detailed Joseph Smith's modus operandi in introducing young female converts from Europe to spiritual wifery, and how he swore them to secrecy:
"They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front--Positively NO Admittance. The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable; but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God, When in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph's) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently, and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings form the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it-but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder-struck, faints recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects. She thinks of the great sacrifice and of the many thousand miles she has traveled over sea and land, that she might save her soul from pending ruin, and replies, God's will be done and not mine. The Prophet and his devotees in this way are gratified. The next step to avoid public exposition from the common course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all is well; after which they return, as from a long visit."
Continued:
Shortly before Joseph Smith's death, his former aide Joseph H. Jackson published an account of his 20 months working closely with Smith. He also related how Smith introduced women into polygamy, and if any of them objected, he would set his minions out to destroy their reputations:
"As I have mentioned the subject of spiritual wives, I will in this place, give the reader some idea of the system. The doctrine is called the "spirit of Elijah," and is kept a profound secret from the people at large, and is only permitted to be known to those, to whom it is given to know the "fullness of the kingdom," in other words, the choice spirits who surround Joe, and aid in carrying his secret measures...Joe had in his employ certain old women, called "Mothers in Israel," such as Mrs. Tailor, old Madam Durfee, and old Madam Sessions, in whom the people have great confidence, but in fact, they are the most depraved hypocrits on Earth. If Joe wishes to make a spiritual wife of a certain young lady, he would send one of these women to her. The old women, would tell the young lady, that she had had a vision, in which it was revealed to her that she was to be sealed up to Joe, (or his friend as the case might be) as a spiritual wife, to be his in time and eternity. This would astonish the young innocent, but scripture would soon be resorted to, to prove the correctness of the doctrine, and that it was proper in the sight of the Lord. Soon after this Joe would appear, and tell the lady that the Lord had revealed to him that Mrs. so & so, had had a vision concerning her, and had been to see her. Not suspecting any collusion the young lady would be astonished, and being strong in the faith, she could have no doubt but that Joe spoke by authority of God, He would then ply his arguments, and with the utmost sanctity speak "in the name of the Lord" and say that at such a time, and at such a place it had been revealed to him that she should be his or his friend's, in time and eternity. If she objected he would quote his scripture and his revelations, and thus by playing on her superstitious credulity, and artfully at the same time inflaming her passions he seldom failed of his object. Being once successful, he held the fear of exposure over her as a rod to prevent rebellion from his allegiance. When, as happened in the cases of Miss Martha Brotherton and Miss Nancy Rigdon, his overtures were rejected with disdain and exposure threatened he would set a hundred hell hounds on them, to destroy their reputations. This was a specimen of the mode and manner of Joe in carrying his vile measures of seduction."
On March 29, 1844, Joseph's former counselor in the church presidency, William Law, noted in his journal how Smith attacked the character and reputations of those who opposed him:
"March 29. Since my last conversation with Joseph Smith which was on the 8th Jan’y I have had not association with him, as I do not with to associate with evil doers; he has in the meantime been using all his influence to destroy me, he has employed every vile and corrupt man and woman in the city over whom he has any power to circulate veil reports as false as the author of lies, about me and my wife, but he has failed to accomplish his object, for our names yet stand fair and untarnished in the estimation of the virtuous and the good; we find the better part of the community to be our friends; they feel disgusted with Smith’s course for it has been most disgusting loathsome to the virtuous mind, lust, falsehood, injustice, and cruelty have characterized his course towards me & mine in such an unparalleled degree that the unprejudiced could not but see it, and abhor the man and his base acts."
Note: Law's entries in his own personal journal completely demolish Rob Fotheringham's naive view that Law and other dissenters were shown a fake or an altered version of Smith's revelation, and that they wrongly opposed Joseph based on their false beliefs. Law was Joseph's counselor in the church presidency for more than two years. He was well aware of Smith's polygamy practice, and it was Law's primary reason for dissenting from Smith and publishing the Nauvoo Expositor. In order for Rob Fotheringham to maintain his naive, incorrect position on this issue, he has to completely ignore entire chains of events such as Law detailed in his journal.
In an 1887 interview, Law related how Smith kept his secret practices from the knowledge of his unsuspecting disciples:
“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.”
On June 16, 1844---11 days before Joseph Smith's death---a Nauvoo Mormon woman named Sarah Scott wrote a letter to her parents which included this:
"But because of things that are and have been taught in the Church of Latter Day Saints for two years past which now assume a portentous aspect, I say because of these things we are in trouble. And were it not that we wish to give you a fair unbiased statement of facts as they really exist, we perhaps would not have written you so soon. But we feel it to be our duty to let you know how things are going on in this land of boasted liberty, this Sanctum-Sanctorum of all the Earth, the City of Nauvoo. The elders will likely tell you a different tale from what I shall as they are positively instructed to deny these things abroad. But it matters not to us what they say; our object is to state to you the truth, for we do not want to be guilty of deceiving any one. We will now give you a correct statement of the doctrines that are taught and practiced in the Church according to our own knowledge. We will mention three in particular.
"A plurality of Gods. A plurality of living wives. And unconditional sealing up to eternal life against all sins save the shedding of innocent blood or consenting thereunto. These with many other things are taught by Joseph, which we consider are odious and doctrines of devils.
"Joseph says there are Gods above the God of this universe as far as he is above us, and if He should transgress the laws given to Him by those above Him, He would be hurled from his throne to hell, as was Lucifer and all his creations with him. But God says there is no other God but himself. Moses says he is the Almighty God, and there is none other. David says he knows of no other God. The Apostles and Prophets almost all testify the same thing.
"Joseph had a revelation, last summer purporting to be from the Lord, allowing the saints the privilege of having ten living wives at one time, I mean certain conspicuous characters among them. They do not content themselves with young women, but have seduced married women. I believe hundreds have been deceived. Now should I yield up your daughter to such wretches?
"Mr. [Jesse] Haven knows these statements are correct, for they have been taught in the quorum to which he belongs by the highest authority in the Church."
Note that Sarah Scott wrote that Joseph Smith himself produced the revelation which authorized "having ten living wives at one time." Sarah did not mention anything about Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, or anyone other than Joseph Smith being the author and proponent of the doctrine. Note Sarah's remark that Joseph's polygamy initiates were "positively instructed to deny these things abroad." So this letter, written 11 days before Smith's death, is obviously a contemporary source which makes it perfectly clear that Joseph Smith produced the revelation, and that it authorized actual plural marriage to multiple living women. Contrary to Rob Fotheringham's fantastic, wild theory, there was no "fake" or "altered" revelation written by Brigham Young or anyone else which caused William Law and others to mistakenly oppose Joseph Smith. THE ENTIRE IDEA IS SIMPLY THE PRODUCT OF ROB FOTHERINGHAM'S IMAGINATION.
In light of this documentation, it's obvious that one of Rob Fotheringham's biggest stumbling blocks in accurately viewing this issue is that he naively believes that Joseph and Hyrum Smith were honest men who did not lie about polygamy. But the contemporarily-published evidence from some of their closest associates and first-hand eyewitnesses to the events clearly show otherwise.
After all, it seems unlikely that a guy who got his start offering to dig for nonexistent treasure would suddenly give up the art of the con. He was a genius at this stuff, and naturally attracted a following of others who wanted a piece of the action.
Randy, you clearly feel very passionate about your position and I respect that. I have a few sincere questions for you and I’m not looking to start a fight, just genuinely interested in your thoughts.
How do we explain Joseph’s altered journal entry from October 5th, 1843 found in the JSP? This is a blatant revision to make Joseph say the exact opposite of what he actually said?
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for no kids from Joseph or Hyrum or why there is not one contemporary journal entry from any of the alleged wives stating that they were married to Joseph. Yes, I know they were told to be secretive, but not one entry in a personal journal?
@@Commenter2121 If you have read the published quotes I provided above, and you still question whether or not Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy, you are too deluded to bother to try to persuade otherwise. You are telling us that you're in the same mental state as Rob Fotheringham, Michelle Stone, Jeremy Hoop, and all of these other Joseph Smith polygamy deniers.
As I've told Michelle Stone multiple times over the last few months, if the issue of whether or not Smith practiced polygamy was tried in a court of law, the evidence for the positive would overwhelmingly decide the case in the affirmative. All of this talk about altered journal entries and the lack of children produced by Joseph or Hyrum are mere side issues that have no bearing on the overwhelming facts.
The thing that you polygamy deniers need to understand is that *everyone* who had knowledge of Nauvoo polygamy testified that Joseph originated it. Whether those people remained loyal to the church, or became Joseph's enemies, or left the church later, EVERY ONE OF THEM stated that Joseph originated it. So, in order for people like you to still believe that Smith didn't start it, you have to theorize that his closest friends and followers consciously collaborated with a number of apostates to concoct and repeat the same lie about Joseph, and maintain that massive chain of lies to their deaths---some of whom lived into the 20th century.