The first three volumes were excellent. I got hard copies of them all! Excellent research by the Price's!

I assume that it's in the fiction section of bookstores.

​@@randyjordan5521I just got to say Randy, it's always refreshing to see you post a few one-liners like this. The posts where you cut and paste the same 100 tired references that have already been debunked are becoming harmful to the NSA's servers.

@@rocketzero2103 What you call "tired references" are the research and conclusions of legitimate, professional historians. If you don't accept the findings of scholars who have studied these issues for many years, you are in the same intellectual and psychological camp as Richard and Pamela Price and Michelle Stone. Here are some more "tired references" for you from a legitimate, professional historian: "From Joseph Smith’s first documented plural marriage in 1841 until his death more than three years later, some twenty-eight men and 106 women (as civil and plural wives) entered the prophet’s order of celestial matrimony.[1] Given the secrecy surrounding Smith’s controversial (and illegal) practice, the exact number of these earliest polygamists may never be known. However, enough information in the form of diaries, letters, autobiographies, reminiscences, affidavits, statements, and family histories has accumulated since the early 1840s-coupled with reasonable inferences and educated guesses-to enable a compelling, albeit tentative, identification.[2] "Based on the most convincing data presently available,[3] the following men either definitely or probably married additional wives with Joseph Smith’s permission prior to his death on June 27, 1844: James Adams, Ezra T. Benson, Reynolds Cahoon, William Clayton, Joseph W. Coolidge, Howard Egan, William Felshaw, William D. Huntington, Orson Hyde, Joseph A. Kelting, Heber C. Kimball, Vinson Knight, Isaac Morley, Joseph Bates Noble, John E. Page, Parley P. Pratt, Willard Richards, Hyrum Smith, John Smith, Joseph Smith, William Smith, Erastus Snow, John Taylor, Theodore Turley, Lyman Wight, Edwin D. Woolley, Brigham Young, and Lorenzo Dow Young. While the evidence in a few cases (i.e., Coolidge, Felshaw, Kelting, Page, and Wight) for an early plural marriage is circumstantial and conjectural, these twenty-eight men and their wives comprise the most likely candidates for membership in Joseph Smith’s inner circle of plural marriage participants. "The abundant evidence for Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo plural wives was first published in Andrew Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record 6 (May 1887): 233-34. Jenson was followed by Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, 2d ed., rev. and enl. (1945; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), 457-88; Thomas Milton Tinney, The Royal Family of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Junior (Salt Lake City: Tinney-Green[e] Family Organization Publishing Company, 1973); Danel W. Bachman, “A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith” (1975); George D. Smith, “Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy” (1994); D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (1994), 587-88; and most recently Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness. Although some readers may disagree in a handful of instances with Compton’s identifications of Smith’s Nauvoo wives,[74] I believe he is accurate. In fact, I am persuaded that the evidence allows for an additional four (if not more) plural wives-Mary Houston, Sarah Scott Mulholland, Mary Ann Frost Stearns Pratt, and Phebe Watrous Woodworth-bringing the total of Joseph Smith’s known Nauvoo plural wives to at least thirty-six." ---"Identifying the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841-1844", Gary James Bergera

@@randyjordan5521 LOL, keep plugging sweetheart. I don't mind looking at the research that historians like Bergera have published. I even own a few of his books. But I think it is a huge mistake to simply trust their conclusions because they've been peer reviewed.

HUGE POINT! Thank you

No, these are apples and oranges. “Well you are too” is one of Michelle’s many idiotic arguments. That Joseph was secretly practicing polygamy and lied about it isn’t that big of a conspiracy. It’s really simple, now apply Occam’s Razor: Some early conspirators spread rumors of polygamy which led to the 1835 revelation on marriage. Late 1830s Oliver Cowdrey and others join a conspiracy to accuse Smith of adultery. John C Bennet then exposes Smith as a polygamist as an independent conspirator not related to Cowdrey’s conspiracy. Then William and Wilson Law join in a separate conspiracy in exposing Smith with the Nauvoo Expositor, a new conspiracy not related to either Cowdrey or Bennet. William Clayton independently records sealing to Lucy Walker as an independent conspirator. Willard Richards ads in sealings as an independent conspirator Now Young joins the conspiracy and rewrites a bunch of history and plants evidence. And everyone’s favorite, he used a Smith impersonator 😂😂😂 William Marks claims Joseph was going to end polygamy, not that credible since every other close associate in the twelve do not say he was going to end polygamy. He was an ignorant conspirator. Michelle has that covered, in her episode 52 she reveled that Marks was too stupid to understand what Smith really meant, but Michelle’s psychic powers understands better 😂😂😂 Years later the affidavits are written by over two dozen women as part of a conspiracy. Then the women independently conspire in writing auto-biographies and personal correspondence never meant for public consumption. What is most likely? A series of convoluted and independent conspiracies? That 50+ people conspired and often independently conspired? Or that Joseph Smith, a guy who said he could see buried treasure with a magical rock, was lying along with his wife and brother? You cannot honestly using logic and reasoning call these two equal conspiracy theories.

Right?? Great point, Westivus - and the hilarious thing is Brian Hales and Todd Compton both talk about Joseph’s “polygamy inner circle” and who was and wasn’t in it…and then call others conspiracy theorists. It’s extraordinary.

@@CleanUpCongress there is quite a a difference. It is idiotic to compare. The logic/polygamy deniers believe multiple independent and multi faceted conspiracies. There was the rumor of polygamy that gave rise to the 1835 statement on marriage. Cowdrey accused Joseph of adultery. John C. Bennett exposed Smith. The Laws exposed Smith. After this consistent theme of unrelated people exposing Smith for different and unrelated reasons then Young and all the apostles confirmed Smith practices. William Marks who joined the RLDS also confirmed Smith’s practice. Then 30+ women write out the affidavits. Then women included their marriages to Smith in their autobiographies and talked about in personal correspondence. So about eight different multifaceted conspiracies involving 50+ people vs Smith having an inner circle of a few trusted men and Smith lying along with a couple others lying isn’t even close to the same. Apply some good logic, reading and Occam’s Razor

The new movement is merely a cult within a cult. Happens all the time. Qanon in maga is another example.

Very interesting. I think 2020 shattered a lot of people’s beliefs in structures and bureaucracies. And access to information is at an all time high and it doesn’t always (or ever) sustain the narrative they grew up with.

It described "Whoredoms"

LOL. The "Expositor" publishers were well aware of Joseph's polygamy practice. On February 7, 1844, Wilson Law published a satirical poem titled "Buckeye's Lament for Want of More Wives," which detailed Joseph's spiritual wifery practice in detail and named some of his plural wives. On May 13, 1844, William Law wrote in his diary that Joseph "had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman". William Law filed legal charges against Smith of "living in an open state of adultery with Maria Lawrence" on May 23, 1844. The "Expositor" text states: "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 are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles;" Also: "It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place?- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that Brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father of mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God.--They are visited again, and what is the result? 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." End quotes. It's a sad fact that the people who assert that Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy are among the the least informed on the actual facts of the issue.

" Law and the Expositor NEVER leaked Joseph as a polygamist; it only leaked Joseph as a receiver of a revelation on polygamy (which of course is disputed)." LOL. That is only "disputed" by people who worship Joseph Smith and refuse to believe that he was a liar, a hypocrite, and an adulterer. The first report of Joseph Smith's "spiritual wifery" practice was published on July 13, 1842, by 17 year old Martha Brotherton. She related Joseph's and Brigham Young's attempt to pressure her into plural marrying Young: "brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days and whoever is the first that is willing to take up the cross will receive the greatest blessings; and if you will accept of me I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom; and if you will have me in this world, I will have you in that which is to come, and brother Joseph will marry us here to-day, and you can go home this evening, and your parents will not know any thing about it." Note that the verbiage Martha recounted is similar to that in the "revelation on celestial marriage", which Joseph formally dictated to William Clayton a year later. The fact that Martha, as well as numerous other people, cited/quoted similar verbiage which Joseph had used when presenting the plural marriage doctrine to them, proves that the concepts came from Joseph Smith. Hyrum Smith presented the "revelation on celestial marriage" to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843, to seek their vote to sustain it as church doctrine. Six men who were in that meeting filed legal affidavits stating that the document which Hyrum Smith read is the same text as D&C 132 today. Austin Cowles, one of those men, filed his affidavit to that effect on May 4, 1844. Cowles opposed Hyrum's proposal, and he joined with William Law and other dissenters to publish the "Expositor." Law added his own affidavit to Cowles': "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." If Joseph and Hyrum Smith had not been preaching and practicing plural marriage, Law and Cowles & Co. would not, nor could not, have filed those affidavits, or bothered to publish the "Expositor." And Joseph would have had no reason to order their printing press destroyed. So the only people who "dispute" that the document originated from Joseph Smith are those who are in intellectual or emotional denial of historical facts.

@@randyjordan5521 Facts matter

@randyjordan5521, we have been over these points on these forums over and over as nauseum. My point was merely that the “affidavits” in the Expositor say nothing about JS practicing polygamy. As for your other points, both Buckey’s Lamentation and the Martha Brotherton affidavit come through John Bennett, with no original. The so-called William Law journal has been debunked - nobody has ever seen it; all we have is a typed copy that arose circa 1984 that is just a few pages and only covers the dates leading up to and including the martyrdom. Every piece of evidence that I’ve ever seen has some problem or another, and THAT is why I dispute our currently accepted narrative, not because I need JS to be “perfect.”

I agree.

Probably true, not everyone needs to be exposed to some of the worst motivated reasoning examples. It can cause the already stupid to become even dumber.

@@RyanWimmer If you’d listened to Michelle and Whitneys work you wouldn’t be so misinformed.

@@Hmcc0712 lol, oh I’ve listened. It’s both aggravating and psychologically fascinating. Michelle Stone is incapable of making a well reasoned coherent argument. She absolutely can’t make an argument without unjustified presuppositions, her methodology is completely based on motivated reasoning. At times she seems completely unaware of how irrational her methodology is. She makes the absolute stupidest arguments with a straight face giving the idea she has zero self awareness. But on the other hand she refuses to leave the amateur stage of KZfaq and enter the professional arena of publishing and peer review which means she might be aware of the uncontrollable rolling laughter an editorial board would have when she tries making an argument based on unjustified presuppositions. It is interesting.

@@RyanWimmer Oh, I’m glad I gave you the chance to explain so now I know you’re completely unaware what you’re talking about

THIS!!!! 💯!!!! Plus for me I’ve gone to God and asked as I believe all should about everything.

Love this comment! Thank you for these excellent insights!

I love how they like to draw on the caricatured idea of the 1950s when if you know your polygamy history, you know that this effort to purge the Church of polygamy and recreate an idealized monogamy goes clear back to 1933 when they released the Third Manifesto to redefine celestial marriage. This was 20 years before Ozzie and Harriet. Just goes to show that the research is sloppy.

OMG. The portions of Clayton's journals which deal with the Nauvoo period were published in 1979. Historian Andrew Ehat was given permission to research Clayton's journals in church archives. He transcribed them, and someone leaked them to Jerald Tanner, and the Tanners published them. They have been on the internet for as long as I've had internet service, which was 1996. There are no unpublished portions of Clayton's journals which could shed more light on the beginnings of plural marriage or somehow magically overturn the fact that Joseph Smith originated plural marriage and dictated the "revelation" to Clayton.

​@@randyjordan5521which website contains Clayton's journals

Absolutely. I'm looking forward to the release of the Clayton diaries, and it can't come too soon for me. Although I believe that we have had access to transcripts of all pertinent portions for many years, it will be important to examine the diary itself, or at least scans of it, to check its contemporary nature and other items.

@@cherylbruno5368 I don't know what further information there would be in any unpublished portions of Clayton's diaries that would tell us any more about Joseph Smith's involvement in polygamy than the portions that were published in 1979. The parts that have been on-line document Clayton's day-to-day dealings with Joseph. Much of what Clayton wrote is corroborated by other contemporary sources. For instance, Joseph H. Jackson's June 1844 memoir mentions Clayton: "He has lived with his wife and wife's sister in common for the last year, and has children by both of them." That corroborates Clayton's journal entries which document Joseph Smith performing his plural marriage to his wife's sister, Margaret Moon. "On the 27th of April, 1843, the Prophet Joseph Smith married to me Margaret Moon, for time and eternity, at the residence of Elder Heber C. Kimball In April, 1843, he /Joseph Smith/ sealed to me my second wife, my first wife being then living." Clayton also noted the birth of his son by Margaret: "18 February 1844, Sunday Sunday 18th. About 12 A.M. M began to be sick and continued to grow worse until 5 o clock when she was delivered of a son. She did remarkably well for which I thank my heavenly father. Mother attended her. I was at home all day. M. seems to do very well" Joseph H. Jackson could not possibly have known about Clayton's plural marriage situation if he had not witnessed it personally. Therefore, that confirms the veracity of Clayton's diary, and completely blows apart the theory that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy.

​@@randyjordan5521link?

Joseph Smith intentionally decided his entire life for what he thought was the cause of god.

@@onesmalllight2 : Scholarly peer review doesn't attempt to filter evidence through consensus. Scholarly peer review doesn't judge or condemn a finding. It merely examines methods through reasonable impartial review. Emotionally laden discourses in the podcast-era isn't a respectable debate. If authentic research was yielded, what's the fear in unveiling it through scholastic academic publishing?

Who specifically hasn’t been peer reviewed?

Peer review isn’t the science standard. Peer review is simply having an expert look for obvious errors

@@whatsup3270 Peer review has long been established as the gold standard for scientific publishing.

@@whatsup3270 Peer review has long been the gold standard for scientific publications.

Except Christ was not a polygyny denier. Yikes.

Vague comment, can you help me understand? Note: Michelle and Denver (since he was discussed in this podcast) have given strong reasons why their stance is more valid and persuasive than the traditional church narrative. Is your comment going to be a more persuasive rebuttal than what they’ve already discussed? Please share. Genuine question because I’d be interested in learning something new.

@@MichaelEllisYT How?

​@@jeffreyrichardson_My perspective is based on Bible as the standard for God word. In summary, Jesus in the new testament 100% supported and obeyed the Torah Law. Therefore Jesus also supports the pro-polygyny sections of Torah. The idea that Jesus created a new standard of monogamy is just not found anywhere in the text.

@@iDad7276 I gave a quick explanation in my response to Jeffrey Richardson.

What happened in the 80s with editing church history?

@@Washingtontree The church spent a fortune on forged documents. Mark W Hofman. He ended up killing himself accidentally during an attempted bombing. I was a new member at the time. That's one of the reasons why I hold fast to my testimony of the Book of Mormon and to the teachings of Joseph Smith.

There is a mountain of evidence which proves that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy that was published during his lifetime, and thus was not edited or altered by the church.

@@Washingtontree For one thing the mark of Cain changed, as did all BoM passages related to that.

Ahh, yes. The era of Boyd K. Packer's war against Mormon historians. I'm convinced that the only reason Michelle is still in the church is because he is no longer alive.

That’s where I was at for a while but when I talked to historians, they never gave me enough evidence to convict Joseph. Every piece of evidence historians presented is trash. It’s all twisted and circumstantial. When they can produce legitimate evidence then I can move on. Until then, innocent until proven guilty

The Utah church never denied that Smith practiced polygamy. They just downplayed the down and dirty details of it. The church has depicted Smith as a "reluctant polygamist" who declined to obey the revelation until God sent an angel with a drawn sword to threaten to kill him if he didn't screw other women. The church also falsely led their members to believe that Smith only plural married a few old spinster women or widows "for eternity." But after so much information had been published on the details of his practice over the last few decades, the church was forced to admit to the truth in essays which were published on their website. Those essays are the reason why Michelle Stone and her fellow travelers refuse to believe that Joseph started polygamy: they know that admitting that is also an admission that he was a liar, a hypocrite, and an adulterer. So Michelle & Co. have gone into intellectual and emotional denial of the facts. That's a hell of a way to live a life.

@@randyjordan5521 Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug. She seems really triggered to find out her hero was no better than Brigham.

Wow. Did you even listen to this episode? There you are claiming to know anything about why Michelle and others in her camp believe the way they believe and getting it completely wrong, commenting about it on the episode where she talks about how ridiculous it is that a historian wrote a newspaper article with his incorrect guess at why Michelle and people in her camp believe what they believe. Lol.

@@melanieposton4560 I have listened to hundreds of hours of Michelle whining about why her church is clearly lying to her about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Have you even read the gospel topics essay and all of the footnotes regarding polygamy in Nauvoo . I am a never Mormon and I know more about your church than 95% of the members Trust me on this one

@@melanieposton4560 I, for one, know exactly why Michelle believes the way she does: She worships Joseph Smith, therefore she refuses to believe that he was a liar, an adulterer, and a hypocrite. So Michelle ignores the mountain of evidence that refutes her beliefs.

I can definitely sympathize with that. I have the exact same problem. However, if a historian is going to take time to speak to a topic -- writing articles, creating videos, giving extensive interviews about it, should we not expect them to put forward the time to try to gain some basic understanding of that topic? Does having a PhD give you permission to speak authoritatively about things that you haven't actually taken the time to understand? If they don't have time to learn about it, then they shouldn't address it. If they address it, then I believe they are obligated to gain some actual understanding, and participate in some genuine engagement.

@danvogel6802 you seem to have time to watch and comment on many of Michelle's episodes. Why don't you appear on one and tell her (and the rest of us) where she is wrong?

I would think that this trend of people believing us "polygamy deniers" over the credentialed would be a bit of a motivator.

@@PeterBrownscouts blind followers isn’t much to brag about. That’s not how history books are changed.

@@RyanWimmer Correct history books are usually changed by those who have power.

@@jacbox3889 her methodology would be rejected regardless of where she is peer reviewed.

I'm always open to correction. I will continue to invite you to show me things you think I am getting or doing wrong. It seems you are claiming the historians are using good methodology and aren't making mistakes on this topic. I very strongly disagree.

@@MichelleBStone I’ve pointed out problems in your methodology multiple times but you choose to ignore it. In the episode you claim to understand Smith’s words to Marks better than Marks was outrageous. Your only argument for it was a presupposition that Smith and Marks are honest. Such methodology is good for faith beliefs but not scholarship. I’d love to see you try to publish your arguments in that episode.

@@MichelleBStone your episode on birth control was full of presuppositions. You assume Joseph wouldn’t do the pull out method, which is 96% effective if done correctly, because of the Old Testament. You assume Bennett would be willing to do things to prevent pregnancy that Joseph wouldn’t based on your presuppositions about what an upstanding guy old Joe is. You assume the women wouldn’t do certain things for contraceptives. You claim they are lying about being married to Joseph out one side of your mouth and also claim that none said they used methods to avoid pregnancy. Are they liars or not?

These Joseph Smith polygamy deniers are really just an echo chamber. Like flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, and believers in other conspiracy theories, all they want is some fellow travelers to engage with to confirm their beliefs.

Most work on polygamy has certainly been self-published in books from Fawn Brodie to Van Wagoner to Quinn. Likewise that's where the skeptical literature has focused. Some have even published through Sunstone. I don't think it's critical that we play in the published journal sandbox. We can convince more people just by self publishing than working through some intersectionally focused history journal. We are also painfully aware how broken and ineffectual peer review is in the social sciences. It's not because we can't. It's because we most likely don't care. The field is accessible enough for amateurs. It's not rocket science.

@@PeterBrownscouts ok, you seem very clueless on this process let me educate you. First and foremost, not a single author you named was self-published. They had to through a publisher and the peer review process. Especially the publisher Brodie went through as well as Benjamin Park. Hopefully you don’t make that false claim again. History is open to non-academics, but the arena in which you put ideas out there is through the peer review process. You self-proclaim yourself an expert on a KZfaq channel forever. You will get uneducated followers, pats on the back, huggie wuggie’s, and all the other attention people that cry and sniffle as much as Michelle Stone does wants. But if you actually want to change a historical narrative and change history books, it will not happen playing in little league on KZfaq. Going to have to play in the big leagues. If hugs is what you want, stay in KZfaq and be viewed as a clown like Michelle Stone is. Would love to hear where the peer review process is broken, I do know of some places but history is not among them.

@@PeterBrownscouts ok, you seem very clueless on this process let me educate you. First and foremost, not a single author you named was self-published. They had to through a publisher and the peer review process. Especially the publisher Brodie went through as well as Benjamin Park. Hopefully you don’t make that false claim again. History is open to non-academics, but the arena in which you put ideas out there is through the peer review process. You self-proclaim yourself an expert on a KZfaq channel forever. You will get uneducated followers, pats on the back, huggie wuggie’s, and all the other attention people that cry and sniffle as much as Michelle Stone does wants. But if you actually want to change a historical narrative and change history books, it will not happen playing in little league on KZfaq. Going to have to play in the big leagues. If hugs is what you want, stay in KZfaq and be viewed as a clown like Michelle Stone is. Would love to hear where the peer review process is broken, I do know of some places but history is not among them.

@@randyjordan5521 ok, you seem very clueless on this process let me educate you. First and foremost, not a single author you named was self-published. They had to through a publisher and the peer review process. Especially the publisher Brodie went through as well as Benjamin Park. Hopefully you don’t make that false claim again. History is open to non-academics, but the arena in which you put ideas out there is through the peer review process. You self-proclaim yourself an expert on a KZfaq channel forever. You will get uneducated followers, pats on the back, huggie wuggie’s, and all the other attention people that cry and sniffle as much as Michelle Stone does wants. But if you actually want to change a historical narrative and change history books, it will not happen playing in little league on KZfaq. Going to have to play in the big leagues. If hugs is what you want, stay in KZfaq and be viewed as a clown like Michelle Stone is. Would love to hear where the peer review process is broken, I do know of some places but history is not among them.

You seem to imply flat earth and intelligent design are opposing views. There are over 200 verses in the scriptures that describe the creation and shape of the earth, and not one of them describes it as a spinning ball hurtling through space. The FEers I know all very much believe in intelligent design. I even know some who were atheists before learning what they believe as the truth of where we live. Just an observation.

@@Kristy_not_Kristine i should word it differently. The point is those two groups fighting against regular science can only self publish, just like polygamy deniers.

I’m a “polygamy denier” and that’s not correct. At what point does Joseph get to speak for himself? If you look at everything Joseph taught *while he was alive* from discourses, letters, and his journal entries you will see he never spoke in favor of polygamy. He ONLY condemned it. Why will you not believe his words? The problem with scholars who are more interested in defending their institution than the messenger God sent is they DON’T let Joseph speak for himself.

@jeffreyrichardson_ BINGO 💥 No one wanted to hear what Joseph had to say when he was alive and they still don't want to know what he really said. Reminds me of another who was taken out for his preaching and practices as well(Jesus Christ).Seems we "deniers" are in good company

@@Kristy_not_Kristine Wait---Are you saying that we should rely on Bible verses to know the shape of our earth and the physics of our universe?

I assume we can agree that the essays won't be up forever. They will change eventually.

@@MichelleBStone this is where your church is so freaking pathetic . There is not a single Doctrine that hasn't changed. You're pathetic church is making things up as it goes along and you are just sacrificing your mental health trying to keep up. If you think you are going to change the church you are woefully mistaken

The Church is ever changing. As a lifetime Mormon myself, I believe in Oriental Orthodoxy -Armenian, rather than what Joseph offered. I instill this Orthodoxy into my ward. Jesus is a lot bigger than Mormons think.

​@@MichelleBStoneThey've changed since I first read them!

@@personofinterest8731 Needless to say they still very clearly say that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy by marrying 14-year-olds and other men's wives. The fact that he had 30-plus wives is unambiguous

Please show me where Mary Fielding Smith claimed that her husband married Mercy. That's a new one I haven't heard before.

@@user-eb3jp8ry3y Please provide your sources and citations.

Why is Phil Davis even in this discussion. He thinks he's Joseph Smith reincarnate.

@@MichelleBStone : · Hyrum Smith married Jerusha Barden in 1826. Born to this union are six children, including John Smith, who would later serve as Patriarch to the Church, while practicing plural marriage in Utah. Hyrum Smith’s son John Smith is not to be confused with “Uncle John”, the brother of Joseph Smith, Sr., who also served as Patriarch to the Church, and practiced plural marriage in Utah. · Jerusha Barden died in 1837. Hyrum Smith became a widower. I don’t think you need a citation for that. · Hyrum Smith married Mary Fielding, December 24th, 1837. Born to this union is two more children, including Joseph F. Smith (Sixth President). Mercy Fielding Smith is obviously Mary Fielding’s sister. Mercy is married to Robert B. Thompson. I don’t think you need a citation for this, but here you go anyways: o Arrington, Madsen, and Jones, Mothers of the Prophets, 96-98; Jeffrey S. O’Driscoll, Hyrum Smith: A Life of Integrity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 163-64. · Mercy and Robert B. Thompson kept Mary and Hyrum’s children in their home during Hyrum’s incarceration, and in Nauvoo, the two families built homes next to one another. Mercy also nursed Joseph F. Smith when Mary was too sick to do so. Here is the citation: o Jennifer Reeder, “‘The Blessing of the Lord Has Attended Me’: Mercy Rachel Fielding Thompson (1807-1893),” in Richard E. Turley Jr. and Brittany A. Chapman, eds., Women of Faith in the Latter Days: Volume One, 1775-1820 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 424-25. · Robert B. Thompson died in 1841. Mercy Fielding Thompson became a widow. Here is the citation: o (Mercy Fielding Thompson, Robert B. Thompson biography by Mercy R. Thompson, 1854 November, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.) · Mercy Fielding Thompson and the late Robert B. Thompson were sealed for time and eternity in May, 1843, with Hyrum Smith standing in for Robert B. Thompson. Joseph Smith performed the sealing. Following this ordinance, Hyrum Smith is sealed to Mary Fielding Smith for time and eternity. Mercy’s exuberance knew no bounds. “Some may think I could envy Queen Victoria in some of her glory,” she said. “Not while my name stands first on the list in this Dispensation of women sealed to a Dead Husband through divine Revelation.” Here is the citation: o Thompson, Reminiscence, 195. Several other couples were married for eternity on this same occasion: Brigham Young and his wife Mary Ann Angell; Brigham Young and his deceased wife, Miriam Works (with Mary Ann Angell acting as proxy); and Willard Richards and his wife, Jennetta Richards. Joseph Smith journal, May 29, 1843, Joseph Smith Collection, Church History Library, Salt Lake City; Lyndon W. Cook, Nauvoo Marriages, Proxy Sealings, 1843-1846 (Provo, UT: Grandin Book, 2004), 5. · Robert B. Thompson appeared as an angel to Joseph Smith and informs Joseph that he does not want Mercy to be lonely. The angel proposes to Joseph Smith that Hyrum marry Mercy for time, as a plural wife, while Mercy remains sealed to Robert in the eternities. Here is the citation: o Mercy Fielding Thompson letter to Joseph Smith III, Sept. 5, 1883, Joseph F. Smith Papers 1854-1918, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. · Joseph Smith committed Mary Fielding Smith to talk to Mercy and introduces the idea of Mercy marrying Hyrum for time. Here is the citation: o Cook, Nauvoo Marriages, Proxy Sealings, 3. The conversion of Hyrum Smith to plural marriage is in 1843. Andrew F. Ehat, A Holy Order: Joseph Smith, the Temple, and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question (Printed by author, 1990), 28-32; Ruth Vose Sayers, Affidavit, May 1, 1869, Joseph F. Smith Affidavit Books, 5:9, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. · Hyrum Smith then spoke to Mercy Thompson on the subject of plural marriage. Here is the citation and testimony of Mercy Fielding with accounts of her sister, Mary: o Thompson, Mercy Rachel Fielding 1807-1893. Mercy F. Thompson autobiographical sketch, Church History Library, catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets?id=f3e7311c-cd9c-4dea-811e-bdb9d973fa26&crate=0&index=2. Accessed: August 11, 2020. · Hyrum is sealed to Jerusha for eternity, with Mary Fielding Smith acting as proxy to Jerusha. Hyrum Smith is now sealed to two women for eternity. Hyrum is sealed for time to Mercy in 1843. Here is the citation: o Newell, Linda King; Valeen Tippetts Avery (1994). Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (2nd ed.). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 142. ISBN 0-252-06291-4. · Joseph and Hyrum Smith are murdered in 1844. Mary Fielding Smith becomes a widow and Mercy Fielding Thompson Smith becomes a widow again. · Mary Fielding Smith married Elder Heber C. Kimball of the Twelve, plurally for time. She dies in the faith in Utah in 1852. She is one of the first pioneers in the valley and laughs at Cornelius Lott for doubting her. Her grave marker reads “Smith” on it. · Mercy Fielding Smith marries Elder John Taylor of the Twelve, plurally for time. The two had been friends since their mutual conversion from Methodism, in Toronto, where the Fielding’s had proselytized to John Taylor. She died in the faith in Utah in 1893. Her grave marker bears the name “Thompson” on it. She is buried next to her sister, Mary. · Catherine Phillips was also sealed to Hyrum Smith for eternity. She never remarried. She died in the faith at 86, in Salt Lake City. · You have subtlety alluded to the new belief that Heber C. Kimball and John Taylor murdered Hyrum Smith. · The sealings are recorded.

@@user-eb3jp8ry3y LOL, I am extremely familiar with all of these claims. Thank you for providing actual citations of the fact that Jerusha and Hyrum were married and had children and that Mary Fielding was his second wife and that they also had children. The rest of your citations are not helpful at all. They are the amusing late claims of Mercy and others that do not at all stand up at all to scrutiny. Hyrum's supposed polygamy is actually one of the most amusing parts of this entire discussion.

Attention seekers typically get upset when they realize they were not as important as they thought

Listened to them all? You really need a different hobby, since following facts, logic, and evidence is clearly not your strong suit.

@@JakobPGrau Sure pal. I only have numerous publications in scientific journals that have been peer reviewed. How many do you have?

@@JakobPGrau 😂😂😂😂

But we know the conspiracy is true because neither Joseph or Emma would lie. We know that, because, well, we know that.

You do know there is zero DNA evidence linking Joseph Smith to descendants not sired with Emma, right?