oh my goodness so so so so good!! im celebrating your valor, your candor, your compassion and your brilliance. exceptional study, heart, and dedication to truth, Michelle. i marvel at what the Lord has reveled to you through your open mind and effort. i cant wait for the rest but had to stop and applaud.
At 20:45 I meant to say "missionary work and plural marriage" not "polygamy and plural marriage." LOL, I hope people can hear what I mean instead of just what I say 🙃
I know there is a statement from Joseph that said wives and children have the right to claim support from their husbands and fathers... but further the Family proclamation states this: Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives-mothers and fathers-will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
Thank you so much for sticking your neck out and making these videos. They have brought me light in a place of darkness and inspired me to have more faith and rely on my Father in Heaven.
These videos are reaffirming that my Heavenly Father does in fact absolutely love his daughters. God never commanded polygamy and the men severely miscontrued if not blatantly lied to justify it. Love and truth always wins❤ And you Sister Stone articulated God's truth so intelligently, fairly, and you are gentle with the delivery. It would be very hard to deliver this so gently. I'm more like it was never commanded, they lied, rewrote doctrine, etc. It's all bongus, and any member that today believes this wasn't practiced then lied about it.....well, they are just not that endowed with enough intelligence. 40:56
I so hate the argument that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were polygamists, as if that establishes some order of polygamy. Polygamy was a part of their dark sides. Abraham and Sarah didn't have enough faith in the Lord that they could have a child, and they came up with the faulty solution; Isaac wasn't even a polygamist; Jacob got tricked by his then future father-in-law to work a bunch for two of his daughters, and he got to have kids with their handmaids as well -we have no idea what the level of consent was in those relationships. Polygamy among them seems to be more tolerated than approved.
Genesis 22: 2 Do we believe God that Isaac is Abraham's only son? If that's the absolute truth, then the story of Ishmael and Hagar is a complete fabrication of the truth! And it further verified that Abraham had one wife and concubines he had none. And the great and abominable church got hold of the Bible to fit their narrative to participate in the nefarious practices of many wives, as harlots is the desire of the great and abominable church.
LOL so you mean to tell me that the entire TWELVE tribes of Israel was one big oopsie that God turned a blind eye to and literally just tolerated hahahahaha wake up sheep
Thank you! Thank you for giving voice to this! Some people have very little compassion - usually leaders of high demand/control groups. Thank you for covering this with compassion and honesty. It has always been sorely needed. Again, thank you. It makes a real difference. And it was brilliant to include a good thing by Brigham at the end. He wasn't all bad. But those he controlled should have had the freedom to only obey the good side of Brigham.
Not just lying but to demand that anyone blindly follow any commandment or counsel given to us from leaders without asking God for confirmation is of the devil for the devil teaches a man that he must NOT pray. Exactly right on the errors of leaders. As Elder Holland said, "So be kind regarding human frailty-your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work."
I love when you are talking about Brigham Young, how you say “because he’s the president of the church” and not calling him “the prophet of the church”, because he was definitely NOT a prophet of God. There really isn’t much of any good that I feel came out of Brigham Young’s mouth that weren’t full of lies, deceit and untruths. He was a very arrogant, prideful, selfish man.
It is hard. I'm inclined to be a little less certain in my judgment of him. But it is hard to not see him as a power hungry narcissist at the very least. I think he had his good moments and could be influenced by the spirit, but he really did do a lot of damage. More and more I see the truthfulness of D&C 121:39 "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." Sadly, too much unrighteous dominion continues in the church today.
Brigham Young gave everything to save us. He saved my family, twice. He saved thousands. He lived his entire life to help the Earth's poorest. He was humble and generous and selfless. He was the best of us and we owe him our lives. It's easy to look back today, atop the mountain of prosperity and peace that he gifted us, and judge him. But he was God's prophet, not despite his character but BECAUSE of his character.
This is a very difficult episode for me to listen to. I have a very hard time hearing that the church leaders called married men and fathers to serve and go away and leave their families for 3-7 years! Saying that if they don’t go to not expect their wives to stay with them!That’s just crazy! To be told to leave all care and thought about their family and for wives not to cry, etc. For the men to leave all care and thought of their families behind. Those poor men and the women left to provide for themselves and their children back in the 1800’s! I don’t believe for one minute that God would ask that of these men and women. Sorry. I believe this was done so people like Brigham Young and others could marry the wives! And he did even though those wives were already married. The faith, sacrifice and pain that they endured is heart wrenching! Especially when I do not believe these men that they “thought” were called of God as prophet and leaders were called of God. Thank you for shedding light on these contrary topics. The truth is coming out on many things. I absolutely do not believe Joseph practiced polygamy.
"To assert that Joseph Smith was afraid to promulgate that doctrine [polygamy], if the command to do so had come from God, is to charge him with a moral cowardice to which his whole life gives the lie. Nor does it charge him alone with cowardice, but brands his compeers with the same undeserved approbrium. The very fact that men are now found who dare to present and defend it, is proof positive that Joseph and Hyrum Smith would have dared to do the same thing had they been commanded so to do. The danger to the lives of those men would have been no more imminent, nor any greater in the preaching of "Celestial Marriage," than it was in preaching the "Golden Bible" and the doctrine that Joseph Smith was a prophet blessed with di vine revelation. For the preaching of these tenets many lost their lives; Joseph and Hyrum Smith were repeatedly mobbed, were imprisoned and finally died, in the faith originally promulgated, but- if we may judge from their public records,- not believers in polygamy." (Joseph Smith III, Reply to Orson Pratt [tract], 4)
You would think that if polygamy were so important that Adam would have been given more than one wife, if there was ever a need to populate the Earth it was at that time of the creation when there is only two people here. Heavenly Father could have populated the Earth much faster if he'd given Adam more than one wife! Michelle, thank you so much for doing this work!
@@aspackblaze3583 Historians took the claims at face value brushing aside the fact that the claims were made decades after the fact and most had no credibility whatsoever. Take for instance the claim that is repeated ad nauseam, that of the barn incident. The story comes from a letter written by William McLellin in 1872 (30 years after Joseph's death) to Joseph's son, in an attempt to convince him that his father practiced polygamy. William McLellin had been excommunicated by Joseph, he robbed the prophet's home when he was in liberty jail and asked the sheriff for permission to flog Joseph. This man claimed in his letter that after Joseph's death Emma confided in him about the barn incident. There is not a shred of credibility to that story just the writings of a man who had proven he hated Joseph. Yet historians present this story as fact, failing to inform people of the lack of credibility of the source. They report the story of how Joseph Kingsbury made a copy of the polygamy revelation (D&C 132) but neglect to inform people that Joseph Kingsbury refused to testify under oath on the matter stating, “I do not swear to that; I affirm to it. To my mind there is a difference between swearing to anything and affirming to it...I generally affirm, and I suppose it is because my understanding is that a man cannot be convicted of perjury on an affirmation, and he can when he is sworn.” (temple lot case) They report the claim that Hyrum was involved in the polygamy revelation story but fail to explain why the person (Hyrum) who was allegedly going to make Emma understand this important doctrine, and the man who was to be the head of the church if Joseph died, wasn't practicing the doctrine himself. They fail to explain why not a single one of Joseph's alleged wives didn't come forward after Joseph's death to ask for financial assistance or stake a claim on Joseph's estate. Why not one of the women claimed to be married to Joseph after they reached Utah and were no longer in "danger". Why in 1852 when polygamy was made public not one of the women came forward to claim that they had been so special as to be chosen to be the prophet's (and governor) wife. The historians rarely if ever point out that is wasn't until 1869 after Joseph's sons went to Utah and were preaching that their father had nothing to do with polygamy that these women all of a sudden claimed to have been Joseph's wives. Nor do they point out that the majority of the women were married to either Brigham or Heber at the time they made their claims. "Joseph F. Smith wrote to Orson Pratt on July 19, 1875, and stated that, as he began to put together evidence of Joseph’s involvement in polygamy and its historical unfolding, he “was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the subject” (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy 1:9; italics added) Emma maintained until her death that she was Joseph's only wife. Joseph's brothers did not practice polygamy There is contemporaneous record of Joseph condemning polygamy/plural marriage Joseph's brother William, his sister, his sons and his wife all stated that Joseph was not the author of polygamy. All that historians have to support their narrative is rumor, hearsay and the word of liars, adulterers, polygamists and known enemies of Joseph. In looking at all the information there is no doubt that Joseph did not practice polygamy.
@@aspackblaze3583 Nauvoo, March 15, 1844. "To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting:-Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to-day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here [at Nauvoo]: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about...I am Your obedient servant, HYRUM SMITH". (Times and Seasons 5 [March 15, 1844]: 474) "We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants (monogamy)" What was the rule or system of marriage? It was as follows: "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." This was cannonized in both the 1835 and 1844 additions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph F. Smith wrote to Orson Pratt on July 19, 1875, and stated that, as he began to put together evidence of Joseph’s involvement in polygamy and its historical unfolding, he “was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the subject” (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy 1:9; italics added) March 15, 1843. An article written by a member of the Church was reprinted from the Boston [Massachusetts] Bee. The author who wrote under the name of H. R. stated, We are charged with advocating a plurality of wives, and common property. Now this is as false as the many other ridiculous charges which are brought against us. No sect have a greater reverence for the laws of matrimony, or the rights of private property, and we do what others do not, [we] practice what we preach. (Times and Seasons 4 [March 15, 1843]: 143) "If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter. You need not write to us to know what you are to do with such men; you have the authority with you.-Try them by the principles contained in the acknowledged word of God; if they preach, or teach, or practice contrary to that, disfellowship them; cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches, and if they are belonging to any of the quorums in the Church, report them to the president of the quorum to which they belong, and if you cannot find that out, if they are members of an official standing, belonging to Nauvoo, report them to us. Follow after purity, virtue, holiness, integrity, Godliness, and every thing that has a tendency to exalt and ennoble the human mind; and shun every man who teaches any other principles." (Times and Seasons 5 [April 1, 1844]: 490-491) Polygamy contradicted the rule of marriage found in the BOM and D&C101 Many who are taking the time to research for themselves and look at all the evidence are coming to the conclusion that Joseph did not practice polygamy. And there is no credible evidence to prove otherwise.
@@aspackblaze3583 yes. The church is wrong in this case because they have a narrative they need to stick to. If the cat is out of the bag that Brigham lied about Joseph, and falsely used Joseph’s name to practice polygamy then that discredits Brigham. Then that ruins the whole narrative that “the prophet CAN’T lead us astray or else he will be removed from the earth”. That opens a big can of worms they don’t want opened. So yes, the gospel topics essays aren’t always correct. Also, the church, and many other church historians use the doctored history, 2nd 3rd 4th hand accounts and non contemporary accounts. Almost ALL of which had motive behind their false claims.
I am of the mindset that Brigham Young was a wolf in sheep's clothing. A charismatic opportunist, who undermined and distorted the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, let alone those of Jesus and God. I am not a Mormon, but they have become a very fascinating people to me and am determined to get to the truth of this religion. The whole truthfulness and identity of this religion hinges upon that of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon itself and these are the only two things that have thwarted any claims thrown against them. I was looking into Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon long before I became aware of this Brigham Young, but quickly discerned that there was inner subterfuge going on within this church, at a very early stage. The very next day that a friend of mine told me they thought Brigham Young had started the Mormon church, I honed in on this opportunist. He is a complete lying fraud that made up this false doctrine and set himself against the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. 1 day vs the 3 months of researching the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Brigham Young is guilty as sin, yet Joseph, his wife and the Book of Mormon ring true to me. There are countless claims made against them, but zero solid evidence and there is solid evidence against Brigham Young, including what you have found, which is just more icing on the cake. Because of all of this, I have to conclude that Joseph Smith and his family are innocent of all the claims against them and most of this can be pinned on Brigham Young and those within his circles. This infiltration involves a lot more than Brigham Young, but many co-conspirators, that is too daunting a task for me to even try to find the rest at this point in time. While I currently have little evidence of this, I strongly suspect that BY may have had JS assassinated in a clever manner. This is mostly based on the timings of events and he certainly had motives to do so and he is very clever and charismatic and can definitely be very intimidating when he needs to be. I see him as a bit of a mob boss, using this Mormon religion for his own gains. There is so much history in and around Mormonism, that it would take me many years to find all the answers that I have questions for. Your own research just fills in more gaps and solidifies what I have already figured out. I can use your videos as proof for others that what I believe is true and accurate. I have other video proofs, but your covers the polygamy aspect of the matter quite well. Thanks for all your hard work and keep up the fight for truth and love. Godspeed!
You mentioned, please forgive me if I misunderstood or didn't get your exact wording, that these missionaries sometimes brought home new wives from their missions. Can you tell me where that might be recorded? I love your stuff!
Oh, I don't know if a specific book has been written on it -- that's probably a really good idea. It's in a lot of peoples' family history (but usually talked about in more glowing terms.) I wonder if The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers would have some specific sources or lists. I'm not sure. I talk about the story of Carrie Owen in my episode on the Great Indignation. She was one who was brough here to marry her missionary without knowing he was already engaged to two other girls. The surprise could go both ways.
You mentioned the rumors and accusations of polygamy surrounding Joseph at least as early as 1835. Joseph himself said in May 1844, “I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.” So the accusations apparently started soon after he married Emma (in 1827). Why would this be? Was Joseph a philandering rake? Far from it!! I’d like to offer some context. In the early 1800s in America and in Europe too, fringe religious groups were popping up all over the place. And it was very common for these groups to be accused of polygamy. In fact it was ASSUMED by many people, in the rumor-mongering gossip culture of those times, that ALL “strange new religions” practiced polygamy. This was the stereotypical attitude towards them. So the accusations against Joseph weren’t based on anything that he did or said or taught. Merely being the leader of a strange new religion, or a member of it, was enough to attract the accusations and rumors of having many wives. Several Utopian and communal groups which were established during the 18th and 19th centuries did have varying marriage systems -including group marriage and polygyny. So people of that time simply assumed that Joseph’s new religion was similar to many other groups in that regard. Also, people really loved gossip back then. They didn’t have TV. Even newspaper articles were full of baseless gossip and rumors, not just about Joseph and other Mormons, but about many other people and groups as well.
We named our son Jacob after Nephi's brother Jacob because of his sermon against whoredoms and plural wives and concubines. His boldness and plainness cannot be mistaken, and the spirit testifies of the truths that he speaks. His tenderness for the hearts of women and children is heartwarming. It's one of my favorite sermons because it recognizes and cherishes women and the sacred nature of marriage and families. I am loving these videos and learning more! Thank you for your perspective and for laying out your research so respectfully, considering the feelings of those on both sides - it is commendable. (I don't think I could speak of BY without contempt.) This issue has been swept under the rug for too long, and I feel like now is the time to address it and declare truth. We need strong foundations of truth in the gospel moving forward into these last days. So many are losing faith because of confusion and lies.
One of my favorite episodes! Well executed and very intelligent. Thank you for the exact quotes too. Loved the end with Jacob 2, the powerful actual prophecy that came true.
Have you read the book 'Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet' by John G. Turner? I feel like it's an excellent read that dives into the good, bad and ugly of Young. For all of his flaws, I feel like he was a more organized, less quixotic leader than Joseph Smith in terms of rational planning. I think he was the right man for the time, but one who did many wrong things.
Hi Michelle, at 6:00 you suggest that the 1835 conference is a good example for us to all be in agreement (a lack of controversy). What do you think about this statement from Brian Hales? "The General Assembly, which may have been announced on only twenty-four hours' notice, was held Monday, August 17[, 1835]. Its spur-of-the-moment nature is demonstrated by observing that a puzzling majority of Church leaders were absent. Missing from the meeting were all of the Twelve Apostles, eight of the twelve Kirtland High Council members nine of the twelve Missouri High Council members, three of the seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy, Presiding Bishop Partridge, and...two of the three members of the First Presidency."
Thank you for that quote. I hadn't read it. I seriously respect Brian Hales as a researcher and collector, but as for the conclusions he draws, they seem to me to be far more effected by his preconceptions than by the actual facts. I'm trying to understand if he is implying that those holding the meeting (namely the 1st presidency of the church) were being somehow tricky or dishonest?The 12 were generally considered to be travelling missionaries (as the Bible specifies) so part of being an apostle was serving missions. All 12 were on missions so they missed all general meetings. But a statement was read from them was read at the meeting. Is Brian claiming that was a forgery? There is also no real evidence that the meeting was spur-of-the-moment or called with no notice, or that it was called in any way different from other meetings. I guess I am wondering what controversy he (r you) find with the meeting. We have a clear record of a public meeting. So, unless he or you is claiming that Joseph Smith and the other general leaders were being somehow underhanded, I don't understand the objection. And it would be strange to claim that Joseph Smith, the prophet of God responsible for the revelations, was being underhanded to sneak something through in the absence of certain leaders lower in authority than he was. Maybe you can help me understand what the possible objections are?
Thanks, Michelle. I can't answer for Brian, but I thought his assessment was fair given his exhaustive knowledge of the topic. Also, I'm not sure that your claim that he is driven by his "preconceptions over facts" is appropriate, given that all of us (including you and I) operate through a lens of bias. However, even with bias, Hales is the leading expert on this topic, and I think he deserves a little more respect from you. It feels hypocritical for you to disregard/downplay his opinion just because you have different preconceptions than him. In other words, just like Brian, you aren't operating from a position of objective, unbiased truth. For me, when it comes to church history, I love listening carefully to faithful scholars. If their bias is toward faith, then I feel that provides a decently reliable foundation. Just my opinion, thanks again for the conversation.
@@Leowinegar I'm still trying to understand why this meeting being hastily put together (if it was) is relevant. Why would that be significant? Would it somehow undermine the original Doctrine and Covenants? If so, how? I would really like to understand the point he and you are making.
Michelle, thanks for asking. I went through a faith crisis about 10 years ago and I've since reconstructed my testimony in the restored gospel. As part of my reconstruction, I've learned to avoid a particular thinking error known as splitting. Splitting is a psychological defense mechanism that we employ when we experience cognitive dissonance. It's also known as black-and-white or all-or-nothing thinking. At the 6:00 in your video you claimed that "the Church" had ratified the 1835 edition of the D&C as though it had been officially canonized. This could be considered black-and-white thinking, because it isn't that simple. The divine provenance of that particular statement about polygamy is suspect because Oliver Cowdery wrote it and Joseph Smith wasn't at the conference. What I'm kindly suggesting is that it isn't as cut-and-dry as you seemed to suggest in your video. Anyway, no ill feelings on my end. Just offering another perspective that you might wish to consider. Here's a summary of the issue from FAIR that I found helpful: www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy PS. when it comes to plural marriage, I'm open to being wrong and to learning more. The documentary record is fragmented, sparse, and it leaves way too much to the imagination. It also leaves us with very little room to make sweeping judgments about Joseph and other early church leaders. When I was trying to help another church member in a faith crisis due to polygamy, I had an amazing experience. As I started typing a few standard apologetic responses I had a sudden and severe stupor of thought and my fingers froze. Surprised and humbled, I paused to pray and listen. These words entered my mind forcefully, "You do not understand that which you speak." So, I got down on my knees and asked the Lord to educate me. My mind was opened and I had a vision of Joseph and Emma sitting on their bed, and they were discussing plural marriage. When people accuse Joseph of lying to Emma, I no longer have to worry because I know that Joseph did his best to communicate this commandment (what he perceived to be a commandment) to Emma. In my vision the spirit also reminded me that Emma never condemned Joseph as an adulterer, and to listen to her over his accusers. Thanks again and have a good evening.
@@Leowinegar wow, thank you so much for sharing that beautiful experience. I love that. It is very meaningful to me. I absolutely agree with you that the scriptural record is sparse and insufficient to make definitive claims, particularly of what Joseph taught or did, but my personal beliefs agree with yours that he did not betray Emma and was not an adulterer. In the comment you address I was referring back to Episode 5 where we covered the Doctrine and Covenants and section 101, and the meeting where it was voted on and accepted by the church. I included the link to the minutes of the meeting so people can read it for themselves. I try very hard to avoid black and white thinking. I was not trying to be black and white, but simply to point out the complexities. Maybe listening to episode 5 will help you see better where I was coming from when I referenced it here. In any case, I do think that public meetings with public and immediate records of them are more reliable sources than decades later claims of private conversations (which is where most of the evidence for polygamy comes from.) And section 101 was, in fact, ratified and cannonized as LDS scripture until it was removed in 1876 (I haven't yet found if the same process of ratification was allowed in 1876 for that edition.) Even the Fair article admits that Joseph supported 101 and its inclusion, and my own research of the claim that it was written by Oliver Cowdery reveal it to be not at all reliable. (I address that in episode 5 as well. Maybe you have other sources?) I admit, I did miss seeing that Joseph wasn't present -- I think I might have said he was there. I feel bad about that because I try hard to be accurate. The bracket is low and looked like it was only on the line of Williams, but I can see that you are likely right, that Joseph was not present -- which explains why he didn't speak, which I found strange. It will be interesting to research to try to find out where he was, just like I found that the 12 were absent because they were all away serving missions. But the point I was trying to make was more about the sources. Again, I think the public and immediately written minutes of a public meeting are far less controversial than decades later reports of private conversations. That was really all I was trying to convey. But thank you again for engaging, and for correcting my mistake about Joseph being there. And especially thank you for sharing your beautiful experience.
Hi Michelle! Again, we love your videos, thank you for all you do!! I am so sorry to keep bothering you about this but we are having a heck of a time finding the link that contains Brigham Young’s, August 30th 1852 talk on polygamy and sending the brethren out on missions. I believe this is the video you mentioned before that you had it posted. Am I looking in the wrong place, or is there somewhere else I can go to locate this? We would very much appreciate a little more direction. If the link won’t post here, I would be more than happy to send you my personal email address as well. Thank you again for your time and dedication to exposing truth!!
Hi Rachel, I'll try again to link the archive of the Deseret News article. That's where I read through the conference. If the link doesn't work, I find it by searching 1852 LDS Special Conference Deseret News. It is available both on archive. org and lib. BYU. edu I usually find it easier to read on archive. org. The specific mission calls are listed on pages 9-10.
This is a transcript of the first half of the conference, which includes the missions. rsc.byu.edu/saints-abroad/minutes-august-1852-special-conference
There are a lot of good young men today who did not go on missions for honorable reasons (such as not agreeing with the church) and cannot get dates today in utah. Thanks for that Brigham Young! The church telling men to leave for 7 years reminds me of the lost boys in the Warren Jeff's community.
While listening to this, I was reminded of the standard of truth. 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. Armies assembled but polygamy did not go forth boldly and independently. Perhaps because it doesn’t fit into “truth”?
Those are great comments about Brigham Young's "prophecies". Were those at the same conference? More Item's I'd like to capture if you have the reference for them.
Yes, they were all spoken at the 1852 special conference. The link to the desert news report page is in the store notes in the description. Let me know if you have a hard time finding it.
Wow. Absolutely amazing! You have shed so much light on so many contrary things. Thank you for covering so many things and making the necessary observations in the contradictions of the history. There has been so much confusion surrounding this topic in talks of the past prophets particularly BY. The false prophets outside the Church echo what BY has said and added more sensational stuff that never came true and proved itself to never come to fruition. I'm so grateful to hear so much clarification regarding correct principle.
It seems that BY used a lot of shame and guilt to "control" the people. I can't believe that he told people not to cry when their husbands and fathers left them for an uncertain journey and having no idea if and when they would be back. I am not convinced that God would want husbands and fathers leaving their families for that amount of time. I know that we have to leave BY's judgment to God, and I like how you brought out the good BY did, but can't help but wonder if he was acting as a sheep to manipulate the people into believing he was better than he was. I don't know. I also wonder how much success the missionaries, who sacrificed their families to go all over the world, saw.
Do you happen to know if there is any truth to the claim that 6,000 members left Utah after this announcement was made because they had no idea that polygamy would be a doctrine taught in the church?
Great question! I have heard that, but I haven't dug into it. It is my understanding that missionary work slowed way down and that many people (especially women) left with the army because they saw it as their only way out -- they were stranded in the middle of nowhere after all. I have heard all of these things, but I haven't personally done the research to be able to substantiate it.
I am afraid that poor Orson Pratt was giving away his own character in this talk---he himself was inclined to sexual debauchery--at least he was tempted by them---clearly projection. Afterall, he didn't know the nature of all men, he knew of his own. What insult to both men and women. It canonizes that women are less important and valuable than men--which cannot be of God. And still today, we support it in the form of allowing men to "marry" multiple wives in terms of being sealed to more than one when one wife dies. The wife who has passed on has no choice whatsoever as to whether her husband takes another wife that she must "put up with" in the eternities. We still passively support this false doctrine. I don't get it personally. I just think they have misunderstood the whole thing and are making a huge mistake. And it ignores that each of us can know absolutely from the Holy Ghost that this doctrine is false. We don't have to, nor should we depend on leaders for what we believe. We should depend on the Lord and the Holy Ghost.
Brigham Young might've preached some beautiful sermons. But you can only take it with a grain of salt because he was a false profit just like Joseph Smith.
I enjoy your even approach to the topic. I find myself somewhere in the middle right now based on doing more research. Maybe Joseph practiced polygamy, but maybe not to the extent that is portrayed. I'm in the camp polygamy isn't an eternal principle. There was plenty of lying going on especially during his latter end of his ministry and church history revisions after Joseph's death. I believe there could be room for the possibility that Joseph had bad behavior, in multiple areas of life and it can be possibly explained looking at it in the lense of the intercessory atonement and scape goat doctrine found in the Old Testament. The book "Joseph in the Gap" by Taylor Drake lays a framework for these concepts in his book, along with doing an analysis of section 132 from a scriptural stand point comparing the verses to what is contained in the standard works. I look forward to your next episode.
You must also hate Paul and how he concedes that men should marry if they cant 'contain'/control themselves. //I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.// 1 Corinthians 7: 8 - 9 Make no mistake. You do have some valid points and polygamy is not meant for the telestial kingdom due to men not being able oftentimes to control their urges and women being jealous of other women, just as your previous episode regarding Sarah and Abraham but if the Lord allows it, it's a preparation for things to come when jealousy and strife will be done away with and only those who do any and everything for the Glory of God.
I have read some of these talks and maybe some context is failing to come through. First, in our human biological history only 40% of males reproduced even one child while 80% of women did. How can this be? Simple, many more men can't, or won't, get a wife. We see today many young men preferring video games and pornography to establishing a lasting relationship with a woman. So do the math, many women will either not marry due to living in a monogamist culture, or will have to have children while single. So we have, and always will in a monogamist society, a surplus of women wanting marriage. In the days of Brigham Young economics drove many young, single women to prostitution, and these prostitutes serviced the perpetually single as well as married men. Had polygamy been incorporated in what was then a Christian culture, the supply of destitute women would have been far less and women forced into prostitution or being house servants (guess what normally took place in that occupation) could have married and had children with good men. Today women have more economic opportunities, but dynamics have not changed. This is why so many career women are having to turn to sperm donors to have babies. Is that better than polygamy?
Yes. The population is reducing, that's plain to see, and that's something people need to accept. Career women usually wait until late 30s and even 40s. That's a bad choice when it comes to having babies.
@@rebeccacampbell585 Yes, and I fail to see the benefits of one man inseminating a half dozen women, and those kids never knowing him or most of their siblings, as opposed to polygamy where one man could have six wives and all the kids know him and their siblings.
Thank you for engaging. These are such great questions. To your first point, as I understand it, the reason fewer men procreate is because of the hierarchy among men (which polygamy goes hand in hand with.) Powerful men tend to exploit, abuse, and take more than their share, and powerless men (along with women) tend to suffer the consequences. As just one example, I believe according to DNA studies something like 1 in 200 men are descended from Genghis Khan, the brutal warlord who had a huge harem and raped who can even guess how many women. I believe war has been the biggest factor in the disparity between female vs. male likeliness to reproduce. Men are the ones killed in war, women are the ones raped or taken as wives (as happened often in the Old Testament -- the next episode.) This is not a good defense of polygamy. To your later point, Christ teaches repeatedly that we must take care of the widows and orphans. That does not mean marry them. Forcing women to be married in order to be provided for is a means of prostitution, not Christian charity, which should be the solution. And there are other reasons it is difficult to understand how this reasoning to justify polygamy. As just one example, as was discussed in this episode, plural wives and their children were often not taken care of or provided for in any way (especially when their husbands were gone on missions for years at a time.) But the bigger point is that polygamy is claimed to be ordained of God as the highest doctrine in the gospel and the means to exaltation. These types of defenses that seek to justify it because of human circumstances do not in any way show it to be of God. There is also no evidence that it would do anything to solve any of these circumstances -- usually the opposite.
As a woman, I would 1000% say it’s better to have children from a sperm bank than it would be to be a part of a man’s harem…er…pool of wives. You use the incompetence of men to be faithful and righteous as a reason for women to degrade themselves by settling for a man who is lustful enough to have several wives, simply because he’s willing to impregnate her. No thanks.
Thanks for asking. It is the original section 101, from the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C which was removed in 1876 when section 132 was added. So you won't find it in the current D&C. I put the link to it the description so you should be able to find it.
So, you just proved Brigham to be a False prophet. He prophesied falsely, and All of his fruits were evil. Throughout the Doctrine and Covenants, God says there will not be any other place appointed for Zion other than those areas by Navoo. Brigham claims to have brought the people to Utah to establish Zion. Then in D&C 124 God says 45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. Servants- meaning specifically those leading the church at that time. Joseph, & Hyrum. Jeremiah 17:6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh, but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a SALT LAND and not inhabited. Brigham was a wicked king Noah in every way. Then you go and try to justify him by using a true prophets words to justify him. it's disgusting. You are fearing man by doing that. Truth needs no defense.
oh my goodness so so so so good!! im celebrating your valor, your candor, your compassion and your brilliance. exceptional study, heart, and dedication to truth, Michelle. i marvel at what the Lord has reveled to you through your open mind and effort. i cant wait for the rest but had to stop and applaud.
Thank you! ❤️❤️❤️
At 20:45 I meant to say "missionary work and plural marriage" not "polygamy and plural marriage." LOL, I hope people can hear what I mean instead of just what I say 🙃
I know there is a statement from Joseph that said wives and children have the right to claim support from their husbands and fathers... but further the Family proclamation states this:
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives-mothers and fathers-will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for sticking your neck out and making these videos. They have brought me light in a place of darkness and inspired me to have more faith and rely on my Father in Heaven.
These videos are reaffirming that my Heavenly Father does in fact absolutely love his daughters. God never commanded polygamy and the men severely miscontrued if not blatantly lied to justify it. Love and truth always wins❤ And you Sister Stone articulated God's truth so intelligently, fairly, and you are gentle with the delivery. It would be very hard to deliver this so gently.
I'm more like it was never commanded, they lied, rewrote doctrine, etc. It's all bongus, and any member that today believes this wasn't practiced then lied about it.....well, they are just not that endowed with enough intelligence. 40:56
I so hate the argument that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were polygamists, as if that establishes some order of polygamy. Polygamy was a part of their dark sides. Abraham and Sarah didn't have enough faith in the Lord that they could have a child, and they came up with the faulty solution; Isaac wasn't even a polygamist; Jacob got tricked by his then future father-in-law to work a bunch for two of his daughters, and he got to have kids with their handmaids as well -we have no idea what the level of consent was in those relationships. Polygamy among them seems to be more tolerated than approved.
Genesis 22: 2 Do we believe God that Isaac is Abraham's only son? If that's the absolute truth, then the story of Ishmael and Hagar is a complete fabrication of the truth! And it further verified that Abraham had one wife and concubines he had none. And the great and abominable church got hold of the Bible to fit their narrative to participate in the nefarious practices of many wives, as harlots is the desire of the great and abominable church.
If they are so righteous, why did they have so many divorces?
LOL so you mean to tell me that the entire TWELVE tribes of Israel was one big oopsie that God turned a blind eye to and literally just tolerated hahahahaha wake up sheep
Thank you! Thank you for giving voice to this! Some people have very little compassion - usually leaders of high demand/control groups. Thank you for covering this with compassion and honesty. It has always been sorely needed. Again, thank you. It makes a real difference. And it was brilliant to include a good thing by Brigham at the end. He wasn't all bad. But those he controlled should have had the freedom to only obey the good side of Brigham.
Not just lying but to demand that anyone blindly follow any commandment or counsel given to us from leaders without asking God for confirmation is of the devil for the devil teaches a man that he must NOT pray. Exactly right on the errors of leaders. As Elder Holland said, "So be kind regarding human frailty-your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work."
I love when you are talking about Brigham Young, how you say “because he’s the president of the church” and not calling him “the prophet of the church”, because he was definitely NOT a prophet of God.
There really isn’t much of any good that I feel came out of Brigham Young’s mouth that weren’t full of lies, deceit and untruths. He was a very arrogant, prideful, selfish man.
It is hard. I'm inclined to be a little less certain in my judgment of him. But it is hard to not see him as a power hungry narcissist at the very least. I think he had his good moments and could be influenced by the spirit, but he really did do a lot of damage. More and more I see the truthfulness of D&C 121:39 "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."
Sadly, too much unrighteous dominion continues in the church today.
Brigham Young gave everything to save us. He saved my family, twice. He saved thousands. He lived his entire life to help the Earth's poorest. He was humble and generous and selfless. He was the best of us and we owe him our lives. It's easy to look back today, atop the mountain of prosperity and peace that he gifted us, and judge him. But he was God's prophet, not despite his character but BECAUSE of his character.
This is a very difficult episode for me to listen to. I have a very hard time hearing that the church leaders called married men and fathers to serve and go away and leave their families for 3-7 years! Saying that if they don’t go to not expect their wives to stay with them!That’s just crazy! To be told to leave all care and thought about their family and for wives not to cry, etc. For the men to leave all care and thought of their families behind. Those poor men and the women left to provide for themselves and their children back in the 1800’s! I don’t believe for one minute that God would ask that of these men and women. Sorry.
I believe this was done so people like Brigham Young and others could marry the wives! And he did even though those wives were already married.
The faith, sacrifice and pain that they endured is heart wrenching! Especially when I do not believe these men that they “thought” were called of God as prophet and leaders were called of God.
Thank you for shedding light on these contrary topics. The truth is coming out on many things.
I absolutely do not believe Joseph practiced polygamy.
I was feeling the exact same way! I totally agree.
"To assert that Joseph Smith was afraid to promulgate that doctrine [polygamy], if the command to do so had come from God, is to charge him with a moral cowardice to which his whole life gives the lie. Nor does it charge him alone with cowardice, but brands his compeers with the same undeserved approbrium. The very fact that men are now found who dare to present and defend it, is proof positive that Joseph and Hyrum Smith would have dared to do the same thing had they been commanded so to do.
The danger to the lives of those men would have been no more imminent, nor any greater in the preaching of "Celestial Marriage," than it was in preaching the "Golden Bible" and the doctrine that Joseph Smith was a prophet blessed with di vine revelation. For the preaching of these tenets many lost their lives; Joseph and Hyrum Smith were repeatedly mobbed, were imprisoned and finally died, in the faith originally promulgated, but- if we may judge from their public records,- not believers in polygamy." (Joseph Smith III, Reply to Orson Pratt [tract], 4)
Love this! Thank you.
You would think that if polygamy were so important that Adam would have been given more than one wife, if there was ever a need to populate the Earth it was at that time of the creation when there is only two people here. Heavenly Father could have populated the Earth much faster if he'd given Adam more than one wife!
Michelle, thank you so much for doing this work!
Emma stated that the first time she ever heard of a polygamy revelation (D&C 132) was when it was published in the SEER in 1853
Wow! Is that from her history? Do you have a source? I would love to see that.
@@MichelleBStone Saints' Herald 65:1044-45.
@@aspackblaze3583 Historians took the claims at face value brushing aside the fact that the claims were made decades after the fact and most had no credibility whatsoever. Take for instance the claim that is repeated ad nauseam, that of the barn incident. The story comes from a letter written by William McLellin in 1872 (30 years after Joseph's death) to Joseph's son, in an attempt to convince him that his father practiced polygamy. William McLellin had been excommunicated by Joseph, he robbed the prophet's home when he was in liberty jail and asked the sheriff for permission to flog Joseph. This man claimed in his letter that after Joseph's death Emma confided in him about the barn incident. There is not a shred of credibility to that story just the writings of a man who had proven he hated Joseph. Yet historians present this story as fact, failing to inform people of the lack of credibility of the source.
They report the story of how Joseph Kingsbury made a copy of the polygamy revelation (D&C 132) but neglect to inform people that Joseph Kingsbury refused to testify under oath on the matter stating, “I do not swear to that; I affirm to it. To my mind there is a difference between swearing to anything and affirming to it...I generally affirm, and I suppose it is because my understanding is that a man cannot be convicted of perjury on an affirmation, and he can when he is sworn.” (temple lot case)
They report the claim that Hyrum was involved in the polygamy revelation story but fail to explain why the person (Hyrum) who was allegedly going to make Emma understand this important doctrine, and the man who was to be the head of the church if Joseph died, wasn't practicing the doctrine himself.
They fail to explain why not a single one of Joseph's alleged wives didn't come forward after Joseph's death to ask for financial assistance or stake a claim on Joseph's estate. Why not one of the women claimed to be married to Joseph after they reached Utah and were no longer in "danger". Why in 1852 when polygamy was made public not one of the women came forward to claim that they had been so special as to be chosen to be the prophet's (and governor) wife. The historians rarely if ever point out that is wasn't until 1869 after Joseph's sons went to Utah and were preaching that their father had nothing to do with polygamy that these women all of a sudden claimed to have been Joseph's wives. Nor do they point out that the majority of the women were married to either Brigham or Heber at the time they made their claims.
"Joseph F. Smith wrote to Orson Pratt on July 19, 1875, and stated that, as he began to put together evidence of Joseph’s involvement in polygamy and its historical unfolding, he “was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the subject” (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy 1:9; italics added)
Emma maintained until her death that she was Joseph's only wife.
Joseph's brothers did not practice polygamy
There is contemporaneous record of Joseph condemning polygamy/plural marriage
Joseph's brother William, his sister, his sons and his wife all stated that Joseph was not the author of polygamy.
All that historians have to support their narrative is rumor, hearsay and the word of liars, adulterers, polygamists and known enemies of Joseph.
In looking at all the information there is no doubt that Joseph did not practice polygamy.
@@aspackblaze3583 Nauvoo, March 15, 1844. "To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting:-Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me to-day, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here [at Nauvoo]: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about...I am Your obedient servant, HYRUM SMITH". (Times and Seasons 5 [March 15, 1844]: 474)
"We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants (monogamy)"
What was the rule or system of marriage? It was as follows: "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." This was cannonized in both the 1835 and 1844 additions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
Joseph F. Smith wrote to Orson Pratt on July 19, 1875, and stated that, as he began to put together evidence of Joseph’s involvement in polygamy and its historical unfolding, he “was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the subject” (Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy 1:9; italics added)
March 15, 1843. An article written by a member of the Church was reprinted from the Boston [Massachusetts] Bee. The author who wrote under the name of H. R. stated, We are charged with advocating a plurality of wives, and common property. Now this is as false as the many other ridiculous charges which are brought against us. No sect have a greater reverence for the laws of matrimony, or the rights of private property, and we do what others do not, [we] practice what we preach. (Times and Seasons 4 [March 15, 1843]: 143)
"If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter. You need not write to us to know what you are to do with such men; you have the authority with you.-Try them by the principles contained in the acknowledged word of God; if they preach, or teach, or practice contrary to that, disfellowship them; cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches, and if they are belonging to any of the quorums in the Church, report them to the president of the quorum to which they belong, and if you cannot find that out, if they are members of an official standing, belonging to Nauvoo, report them to us. Follow after purity, virtue, holiness, integrity, Godliness, and every thing that has a tendency to exalt and ennoble the human mind; and shun every man who teaches any other principles." (Times and Seasons 5 [April 1, 1844]: 490-491)
Polygamy contradicted the rule of marriage found in the BOM and D&C101
Many who are taking the time to research for themselves and look at all the evidence are coming to the conclusion that Joseph did not practice polygamy. And there is no credible evidence to prove otherwise.
@@aspackblaze3583 yes. The church is wrong in this case because they have a narrative they need to stick to. If the cat is out of the bag that Brigham lied about Joseph, and falsely used Joseph’s name to practice polygamy then that discredits Brigham. Then that ruins the whole narrative that “the prophet CAN’T lead us astray or else he will be removed from the earth”. That opens a big can of worms they don’t want opened. So yes, the gospel topics essays aren’t always correct. Also, the church, and many other church historians use the doctored history, 2nd 3rd 4th hand accounts and non contemporary accounts. Almost ALL of which had motive behind their false claims.
I am of the mindset that Brigham Young was a wolf in sheep's clothing. A charismatic opportunist, who undermined and distorted the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, let alone those of Jesus and God.
I am not a Mormon, but they have become a very fascinating people to me and am determined to get to the truth of this religion.
The whole truthfulness and identity of this religion hinges upon that of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon itself and these are the only two things that have thwarted any claims thrown against them. I was looking into Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon long before I became aware of this Brigham Young, but quickly discerned that there was inner subterfuge going on within this church, at a very early stage.
The very next day that a friend of mine told me they thought Brigham Young had started the Mormon church, I honed in on this opportunist. He is a complete lying fraud that made up this false doctrine and set himself against the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. 1 day vs the 3 months of researching the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Brigham Young is guilty as sin, yet Joseph, his wife and the Book of Mormon ring true to me.
There are countless claims made against them, but zero solid evidence and there is solid evidence against Brigham Young, including what you have found, which is just more icing on the cake.
Because of all of this, I have to conclude that Joseph Smith and his family are innocent of all the claims against them and most of this can be pinned on Brigham Young and those within his circles. This infiltration involves a lot more than Brigham Young, but many co-conspirators, that is too daunting a task for me to even try to find the rest at this point in time.
While I currently have little evidence of this, I strongly suspect that BY may have had JS assassinated in a clever manner. This is mostly based on the timings of events and he certainly had motives to do so and he is very clever and charismatic and can definitely be very intimidating when he needs to be.
I see him as a bit of a mob boss, using this Mormon religion for his own gains. There is so much history in and around Mormonism, that it would take me many years to find all the answers that I have questions for.
Your own research just fills in more gaps and solidifies what I have already figured out.
I can use your videos as proof for others that what I believe is true and accurate.
I have other video proofs, but your covers the polygamy aspect of the matter quite well.
Thanks for all your hard work and keep up the fight for truth and love.
Godspeed!
You’d probably like the documentary Who Killed Joseph Smith 🤣
You mentioned, please forgive me if I misunderstood or didn't get your exact wording, that these missionaries sometimes brought home new wives from their missions. Can you tell me where that might be recorded? I love your stuff!
Oh, I don't know if a specific book has been written on it -- that's probably a really good idea. It's in a lot of peoples' family history (but usually talked about in more glowing terms.) I wonder if The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers would have some specific sources or lists. I'm not sure.
I talk about the story of Carrie Owen in my episode on the Great Indignation. She was one who was brough here to marry her missionary without knowing he was already engaged to two other girls. The surprise could go both ways.
You mentioned the rumors and accusations of polygamy surrounding Joseph at least as early as 1835.
Joseph himself said in May 1844, “I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.”
So the accusations apparently started soon after he married Emma (in 1827).
Why would this be? Was Joseph a philandering rake? Far from it!!
I’d like to offer some context. In the early 1800s in America and in Europe too, fringe religious groups were popping up all over the place. And it was very common for these groups to be accused of polygamy. In fact it was ASSUMED by many people, in the rumor-mongering gossip culture of those times, that ALL “strange new religions” practiced polygamy. This was the stereotypical attitude towards them.
So the accusations against Joseph weren’t based on anything that he did or said or taught. Merely being the leader of a strange new religion, or a member of it, was enough to attract the accusations and rumors of having many wives.
Several Utopian and communal groups which were established during the 18th and 19th centuries did have varying marriage systems -including group marriage and polygyny. So people of that time simply assumed that Joseph’s new religion was similar to many other groups in that regard.
Also, people really loved gossip back then. They didn’t have TV. Even newspaper articles were full of baseless gossip and rumors, not just about Joseph and other Mormons, but about many other people and groups as well.
We named our son Jacob after Nephi's brother Jacob because of his sermon against whoredoms and plural wives and concubines. His boldness and plainness cannot be mistaken, and the spirit testifies of the truths that he speaks. His tenderness for the hearts of women and children is heartwarming. It's one of my favorite sermons because it recognizes and cherishes women and the sacred nature of marriage and families.
I am loving these videos and learning more! Thank you for your perspective and for laying out your research so respectfully, considering the feelings of those on both sides - it is commendable. (I don't think I could speak of BY without contempt.)
This issue has been swept under the rug for too long, and I feel like now is the time to address it and declare truth. We need strong foundations of truth in the gospel moving forward into these last days. So many are losing faith because of confusion and lies.
One of my favorite episodes! Well executed and very intelligent. Thank you for the exact quotes too. Loved the end with Jacob 2, the powerful actual prophecy that came true.
Have you read the book 'Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet' by John G. Turner? I feel like it's an excellent read that dives into the good, bad and ugly of Young. For all of his flaws, I feel like he was a more organized, less quixotic leader than Joseph Smith in terms of rational planning. I think he was the right man for the time, but one who did many wrong things.
That's really interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing. I will have to look into that book.
Hi Michelle, at 6:00 you suggest that the 1835 conference is a good example for us to all be in agreement (a lack of controversy). What do you think about this statement from Brian Hales?
"The General Assembly, which may have been announced on only twenty-four hours' notice, was held Monday, August 17[, 1835]. Its spur-of-the-moment nature is demonstrated by observing that a puzzling majority of Church leaders were absent. Missing from the meeting were all of the Twelve Apostles, eight of the twelve Kirtland High Council members nine of the twelve Missouri High Council members, three of the seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy, Presiding Bishop Partridge, and...two of the three members of the First Presidency."
Thank you for that quote. I hadn't read it. I seriously respect Brian Hales as a researcher and collector, but as for the conclusions he draws, they seem to me to be far more effected by his preconceptions than by the actual facts. I'm trying to understand if he is implying that those holding the meeting (namely the 1st presidency of the church) were being somehow tricky or dishonest?The 12 were generally considered to be travelling missionaries (as the Bible specifies) so part of being an apostle was serving missions. All 12 were on missions so they missed all general meetings. But a statement was read from them was read at the meeting. Is Brian claiming that was a forgery? There is also no real evidence that the meeting was spur-of-the-moment or called with no notice, or that it was called in any way different from other meetings.
I guess I am wondering what controversy he (r you) find with the meeting. We have a clear record of a public meeting. So, unless he or you is claiming that Joseph Smith and the other general leaders were being somehow underhanded, I don't understand the objection. And it would be strange to claim that Joseph Smith, the prophet of God responsible for the revelations, was being underhanded to sneak something through in the absence of certain leaders lower in authority than he was. Maybe you can help me understand what the possible objections are?
Thanks, Michelle.
I can't answer for Brian, but I thought his assessment was fair given his exhaustive knowledge of the topic. Also, I'm not sure that your claim that he is driven by his "preconceptions over facts" is appropriate, given that all of us (including you and I) operate through a lens of bias.
However, even with bias, Hales is the leading expert on this topic, and I think he deserves a little more respect from you. It feels hypocritical for you to disregard/downplay his opinion just because you have different preconceptions than him. In other words, just like Brian, you aren't operating from a position of objective, unbiased truth.
For me, when it comes to church history, I love listening carefully to faithful scholars. If their bias is toward faith, then I feel that provides a decently reliable foundation.
Just my opinion, thanks again for the conversation.
@@Leowinegar I'm still trying to understand why this meeting being hastily put together (if it was) is relevant. Why would that be significant? Would it somehow undermine the original Doctrine and Covenants? If so, how? I would really like to understand the point he and you are making.
Michelle, thanks for asking.
I went through a faith crisis about 10 years ago and I've since reconstructed my testimony in the restored gospel. As part of my reconstruction, I've learned to avoid a particular thinking error known as splitting. Splitting is a psychological defense mechanism that we employ when we experience cognitive dissonance. It's also known as black-and-white or all-or-nothing thinking.
At the 6:00 in your video you claimed that "the Church" had ratified the 1835 edition of the D&C as though it had been officially canonized. This could be considered black-and-white thinking, because it isn't that simple. The divine provenance of that particular statement about polygamy is suspect because Oliver Cowdery wrote it and Joseph Smith wasn't at the conference.
What I'm kindly suggesting is that it isn't as cut-and-dry as you seemed to suggest in your video.
Anyway, no ill feelings on my end. Just offering another perspective that you might wish to consider. Here's a summary of the issue from FAIR that I found helpful:
www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_polygamy/1835_Doctrine_and_Covenants_denies_polygamy
PS. when it comes to plural marriage, I'm open to being wrong and to learning more. The documentary record is fragmented, sparse, and it leaves way too much to the imagination. It also leaves us with very little room to make sweeping judgments about Joseph and other early church leaders.
When I was trying to help another church member in a faith crisis due to polygamy, I had an amazing experience. As I started typing a few standard apologetic responses I had a sudden and severe stupor of thought and my fingers froze. Surprised and humbled, I paused to pray and listen. These words entered my mind forcefully, "You do not understand that which you speak."
So, I got down on my knees and asked the Lord to educate me. My mind was opened and I had a vision of Joseph and Emma sitting on their bed, and they were discussing plural marriage. When people accuse Joseph of lying to Emma, I no longer have to worry because I know that Joseph did his best to communicate this commandment (what he perceived to be a commandment) to Emma. In my vision the spirit also reminded me that Emma never condemned Joseph as an adulterer, and to listen to her over his accusers.
Thanks again and have a good evening.
@@Leowinegar wow, thank you so much for sharing that beautiful experience. I love that. It is very meaningful to me.
I absolutely agree with you that the scriptural record is sparse and insufficient to make definitive claims, particularly of what Joseph taught or did, but my personal beliefs agree with yours that he did not betray Emma and was not an adulterer.
In the comment you address I was referring back to Episode 5 where we covered the Doctrine and Covenants and section 101, and the meeting where it was voted on and accepted by the church. I included the link to the minutes of the meeting so people can read it for themselves. I try very hard to avoid black and white thinking. I was not trying to be black and white, but simply to point out the complexities. Maybe listening to episode 5 will help you see better where I was coming from when I referenced it here. In any case, I do think that public meetings with public and immediate records of them are more reliable sources than decades later claims of private conversations (which is where most of the evidence for polygamy comes from.) And section 101 was, in fact, ratified and cannonized as LDS scripture until it was removed in 1876 (I haven't yet found if the same process of ratification was allowed in 1876 for that edition.) Even the Fair article admits that Joseph supported 101 and its inclusion, and my own research of the claim that it was written by Oliver Cowdery reveal it to be not at all reliable. (I address that in episode 5 as well. Maybe you have other sources?)
I admit, I did miss seeing that Joseph wasn't present -- I think I might have said he was there. I feel bad about that because I try hard to be accurate. The bracket is low and looked like it was only on the line of Williams, but I can see that you are likely right, that Joseph was not present -- which explains why he didn't speak, which I found strange.
It will be interesting to research to try to find out where he was, just like I found that the 12 were absent because they were all away serving missions. But the point I was trying to make was more about the sources. Again, I think the public and immediately written minutes of a public meeting are far less controversial than decades later reports of private conversations. That was really all I was trying to convey. But thank you again for engaging, and for correcting my mistake about Joseph being there. And especially thank you for sharing your beautiful experience.
Hi Michelle! Again, we love your videos, thank you for all you do!! I am so sorry to keep bothering you about this but we are having a heck of a time finding the link that contains Brigham Young’s, August 30th 1852 talk on polygamy and sending the brethren out on missions.
I believe this is the video you mentioned before that you had it posted. Am I looking in the wrong place, or is there somewhere else I can go to locate this?
We would very much appreciate a little more direction. If the link won’t post here, I would be more than happy to send you my personal email address as well.
Thank you again for your time and dedication to exposing truth!!
When I go into the link you have posted above, it says it is Orson Pratt’s talk, not Brigham Young’s…. Perhaps I’m overlooking something…?🤷♀️
Hi Rachel, I'll try again to link the archive of the Deseret News article. That's where I read through the conference. If the link doesn't work, I find it by searching 1852 LDS Special Conference Deseret News. It is available both on archive. org and lib. BYU. edu I usually find it easier to read on archive. org.
The specific mission calls are listed on pages 9-10.
archive.org/details/specialconferenc00chur/mode/2up
contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/17338
This is a transcript of the first half of the conference, which includes the missions. rsc.byu.edu/saints-abroad/minutes-august-1852-special-conference
There are a lot of good young men today who did not go on missions for honorable reasons (such as not agreeing with the church) and cannot get dates today in utah. Thanks for that Brigham Young!
The church telling men to leave for 7 years reminds me of the lost boys in the Warren Jeff's community.
I hadn't made that connection. So sad. I hope we continue to progress.
While listening to this, I was reminded of the standard of truth.
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.
Armies assembled but polygamy did not go forth boldly and independently. Perhaps because it doesn’t fit into “truth”?
I love that. Thank you for sharing.
Those are great comments about Brigham Young's "prophecies". Were those at the same conference? More Item's I'd like to capture if you have the reference for them.
Yes, they were all spoken at the 1852 special conference. The link to the desert news report page is in the store notes in the description.
Let me know if you have a hard time finding it.
Very good video
Wow. Absolutely amazing! You have shed so much light on so many contrary things. Thank you for covering so many things and making the necessary observations in the contradictions of the history. There has been so much confusion surrounding this topic in talks of the past prophets particularly BY. The false prophets outside the Church echo what BY has said and added more sensational stuff that never came true and proved itself to never come to fruition. I'm so grateful to hear so much clarification regarding correct principle.
So nice of you,, I'd throw Young and Pratt right under the bus. 😊
It seems that BY used a lot of shame and guilt to "control" the people. I can't believe that he told people not to cry when their husbands and fathers left them for an uncertain journey and having no idea if and when they would be back. I am not convinced that God would want husbands and fathers leaving their families for that amount of time. I know that we have to leave BY's judgment to God, and I like how you brought out the good BY did, but can't help but wonder if he was acting as a sheep to manipulate the people into believing he was better than he was. I don't know. I also wonder how much success the missionaries, who sacrificed their families to go all over the world, saw.
Do you happen to know if there is any truth to the claim that 6,000 members left Utah after this announcement was made because they had no idea that polygamy would be a doctrine taught in the church?
Great question! I have heard that, but I haven't dug into it. It is my understanding that missionary work slowed way down and that many people (especially women) left with the army because they saw it as their only way out -- they were stranded in the middle of nowhere after all. I have heard all of these things, but I haven't personally done the research to be able to substantiate it.
I am afraid that poor Orson Pratt was giving away his own character in this talk---he himself was inclined to sexual debauchery--at least he was tempted by them---clearly projection. Afterall, he didn't know the nature of all men, he knew of his own. What insult to both men and women. It canonizes that women are less important and valuable than men--which cannot be of God. And still today, we support it in the form of allowing men to "marry" multiple wives in terms of being sealed to more than one when one wife dies. The wife who has passed on has no choice whatsoever as to whether her husband takes another wife that she must "put up with" in the eternities. We still passively support this false doctrine. I don't get it personally. I just think they have misunderstood the whole thing and are making a huge mistake. And it ignores that each of us can know absolutely from the Holy Ghost that this doctrine is false. We don't have to, nor should we depend on leaders for what we believe. We should depend on the Lord and the Holy Ghost.
Brigham Young might've preached some beautiful sermons. But you can only take it with a grain of salt because he was a false profit just like Joseph Smith.
Brigham sure did a great job forgetting he had a wife on his mission. It must have made it much easier to sleep with other women. 😒
Careful of presentism
I. Despise. Brigham Young.
I understand. He can be tough to take. I'm still working through my feelings about him.
Perhaps telling the men not to worry about their wives is rough, but whoever puts his hand to the plough and looks back is not fit for the kingdom.
I enjoy your even approach to the topic. I find myself somewhere in the middle right now based on doing more research. Maybe Joseph practiced polygamy, but maybe not to the extent that is portrayed. I'm in the camp polygamy isn't an eternal principle. There was plenty of lying going on especially during his latter end of his ministry and church history revisions after Joseph's death. I believe there could be room for the possibility that Joseph had bad behavior, in multiple areas of life and it can be possibly explained looking at it in the lense of the intercessory atonement and scape goat doctrine found in the Old Testament. The book "Joseph in the Gap" by Taylor Drake lays a framework for these concepts in his book, along with doing an analysis of section 132 from a scriptural stand point comparing the verses to what is contained in the standard works.
I look forward to your next episode.
You must also hate Paul and how he concedes that men should marry if they cant 'contain'/control themselves.
//I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.//
1 Corinthians 7: 8 - 9
Make no mistake. You do have some valid points and polygamy is not meant for the telestial kingdom due to men not being able oftentimes to control their urges and women being jealous of other women, just as your previous episode regarding Sarah and Abraham but if the Lord allows it, it's a preparation for things to come when jealousy and strife will be done away with and only those who do any and everything for the Glory of God.
I have read some of these talks and maybe some context is failing to come through. First, in our human biological history only 40% of males reproduced even one child while 80% of women did. How can this be? Simple, many more men can't, or won't, get a wife. We see today many young men preferring video games and pornography to establishing a lasting relationship with a woman. So do the math, many women will either not marry due to living in a monogamist culture, or will have to have children while single. So we have, and always will in a monogamist society, a surplus of women wanting marriage. In the days of Brigham Young economics drove many young, single women to prostitution, and these prostitutes serviced the perpetually single as well as married men. Had polygamy been incorporated in what was then a Christian culture, the supply of destitute women would have been far less and women forced into prostitution or being house servants (guess what normally took place in that occupation) could have married and had children with good men. Today women have more economic opportunities, but dynamics have not changed. This is why so many career women are having to turn to sperm donors to have babies. Is that better than polygamy?
Yes. The population is reducing, that's plain to see, and that's something people need to accept. Career women usually wait until late 30s and even 40s. That's a bad choice when it comes to having babies.
@@rebeccacampbell585 Yes, and I fail to see the benefits of one man inseminating a half dozen women, and those kids never knowing him or most of their siblings, as opposed to polygamy where one man could have six wives and all the kids know him and their siblings.
Thank you for engaging. These are such great questions. To your first point, as I understand it, the reason fewer men procreate is because of the hierarchy among men (which polygamy goes hand in hand with.) Powerful men tend to exploit, abuse, and take more than their share, and powerless men (along with women) tend to suffer the consequences. As just one example, I believe according to DNA studies something like 1 in 200 men are descended from Genghis Khan, the brutal warlord who had a huge harem and raped who can even guess how many women. I believe war has been the biggest factor in the disparity between female vs. male likeliness to reproduce. Men are the ones killed in war, women are the ones raped or taken as wives (as happened often in the Old Testament -- the next episode.) This is not a good defense of polygamy.
To your later point, Christ teaches repeatedly that we must take care of the widows and orphans. That does not mean marry them. Forcing women to be married in order to be provided for is a means of prostitution, not Christian charity, which should be the solution. And there are other reasons it is difficult to understand how this reasoning to justify polygamy. As just one example, as was discussed in this episode, plural wives and their children were often not taken care of or provided for in any way (especially when their husbands were gone on missions for years at a time.)
But the bigger point is that polygamy is claimed to be ordained of God as the highest doctrine in the gospel and the means to exaltation. These types of defenses that seek to justify it because of human circumstances do not in any way show it to be of God. There is also no evidence that it would do anything to solve any of these circumstances -- usually the opposite.
As a woman, I would 1000% say it’s better to have children from a sperm bank than it would be to be a part of a man’s harem…er…pool of wives.
You use the incompetence of men to be faithful and righteous as a reason for women to degrade themselves by settling for a man who is lustful enough to have several wives, simply because he’s willing to impregnate her.
No thanks.
@@MichelleBStoneYou say it's never been a commandment. Would you accept polygamy it if God commanded it today?
you state that section 101 condenms polygamy, could you direct me to the verses where this is so. I cant seem to find them thanx.
Thanks for asking. It is the original section 101, from the 1835 and 1844 editions of the D&C which was removed in 1876 when section 132 was added. So you won't find it in the current D&C. I put the link to it the description so you should be able to find it.
Here is the link: www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/259
So, you just proved Brigham to be a False prophet. He prophesied falsely, and All of his fruits were evil.
Throughout the Doctrine and Covenants, God says there will not be any other place appointed for Zion other than those areas by Navoo. Brigham claims to have brought the people to Utah to establish Zion.
Then in D&C 124 God says
45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.
Servants- meaning specifically those leading the church at that time. Joseph, & Hyrum.
Jeremiah 17:6
For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh, but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a SALT LAND and not inhabited.
Brigham was a wicked king Noah in every way.
Then you go and try to justify him by using a true prophets words to justify him. it's disgusting. You are fearing man by doing that. Truth needs no defense.