Brigham Young and others practiced it, but that does not mean Christ authorized it. Joseph never authorized it and it is not authorized unless Christ says so. Simple as that!

Christ never has and never will authorize polygamy.​@@tucuxi70

Christ did not authorize polygamy in the church. Confused members did. Warren Jeffs is nothing more than an evil man influenced by the devil to lead a false church and further confuse mankind so they will learn to hate Christ's true church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints!

There can be smoke if your enemies are lighting the fires

I didn't feel we were mocking, definitely critical of their arguments and theory

Or 8 women... Or One woman with 8 men... etc...

Or 32 women, 8 of whom were children, and many of whom were already married to other men.

@@jahadden1 I'm talking about today. The people who freak out about the men in Colorado City, men married to three wives. People freak out over that. Those same people who freak out over it are ok with a man married to a man, a woman married to a woman, a man sleeping with eight women at the same time, etc. It's a strange one.

@@jahadden1 Where do you get eight of whom were children? Who are you talking about?

@@wes2176 He's referring to Joseph Smith's teenaged plural wives. In actual fact, 11 of them were teens, not 8.

LOL No, if you really look at Mormonism in its ENTIRETY then it is 100% true. The problem is that people how leave the Church (whether for "Christianity" or Exmormonism) don't know what they are talking about and have a very small view of the Church.

Sure. And I've got some ocean side property in Arizona I'll sell you for a bargain price.

@@billyates3226 Guess what, you don't so you lie. However Joseph Smith did not lie. Emma Smith was his only wife. Fact!

@@billyates3226 You don't have that property so you lie in your sarcasm!

I'm with you. Joseph was not a polygamous

@@user-gc1ls2fy1y Polygamist

One reason...

Michelle and others like her are at least on the right track. However, the real truth among all the confusing books on the subject, is that the Early church had members sealed to Priesthood leaders. Joseph was NOT marrying these women. Many of these women who wrote in journals didn't understand what Joseph was asking them to do. So rumors spread about him marrying women in the temple. Today many books are written by those who oppose the church and they use these rumors as their so called evidence. Never is rumor evidence. Yes, members of the church including Brigham Young, were not perfect. Joseph was trying to teach them. So members strayed and practiced polygamy without Joseph saying it was approved by the Lord for them to do so. These sealings to Priesthood leaders came to be known as Law of Adoption sealings. They were NOT marriages. So Joseph Smith was NOT a polygamist. All the books written today claiming evidence of him being polygamist are nothing more than modern day rumors based on past rumor. Which is ridiculous! Joseph was only married to Emma. Period!

I agree. Also they were being breathed down their necks and persecuted for every tiny thing imaginable. Mostly false accusations. It didn't matter if it was illegal or not, the opposers wanted blood and that is a great incentive to keep hush hush.

@@jacobsamuelson3181 EXACTLY!!

Add to this the element of Masonic secrecy that entered into the church at this time. Even the most faithful of the uninitiated Saints would not have been told about this.

This is the first time I've agreed with Kris. 😳

It was openly practiced and preached immediately after Joseph's death. So, that theory is completely illogical.

No, it just means Brian Hales is arrogant and dishonest. Which he is.

ad hominem attack all you guys got?

Michelle, in her infinite wisdom, also declared that Todd Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" is "not a history book." Compton spent five years researching the subject in order to publish his 788-page book. He cited assistance from descendants of the women, as well as 31 different historians, and nine different libraries from which he gleaned information. His footnotes and references comprise 155 pages of his book. But Michelle says that it's "not a history book."

@@randyjordan5521 it’s crappy history. Citing impressive sounding numbers like “xx people interviewed” or “it took xx years to write” doesn’t mean he has good arguments.

​@@bobbyshiffler80Nah. Your conspiracy theories are the nonsense.

I guarantee to you that the earth being flat is much more silly. My sister is a flat earther and it gets weird quick.

@@blainehowes5242it is impossible to convince flat earthers that they are wrong.

@@sincereflowers3218 It's funny you say that, because my sister uses that exactly fact(no flat earthers become round earthers!) as a proof that the earth is flat. There is, however, a youtube channel called Seek Truth, Say Truth that is a former flat earther.

@@blainehowes5242 I had to go to my nieces school recently to talk to an administrator about her history teacher who apparently told the class (8th graders) that there is “credible evidence to support” the flat earth theory. She no longer goes to that school

@@blainehowes5242 Flat earthers, moon landing deniers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists use the same flawed mental processes as do Michelle Stone and friends.

Michelle and others like her are at least on the right track. However, the real truth among all the confusing books on the subject, is that the Early church had members sealed to Priesthood leaders. Joseph was NOT marrying these women. Many of these women who wrote in journals didn't understand what Joseph was asking them to do. So rumors spread about him marrying women in the temple. Today many books are written by those who oppose the church and they use these rumors as their so called evidence. Never is rumor evidence. Yes, members of the church including Brigham Young, were not perfect. Joseph was trying to teach them. So members strayed and practiced polygamy without Joseph saying it was approved by the Lord for them to do so. These sealings to Priesthood leaders came to be known as Law of Adoption sealings. They were NOT marriages. So Joseph Smith was NOT a polygamist. All the books written today claiming evidence of him being polygamist are nothing more than modern day rumors based on past rumor. Which is ridiculous! Joseph was only married to Emma. Period!

Yeah he should have said no one in the council meeting denied what was said. Thanks for the clarification though I think it plays the same weight.

@@jacobsamuelson3181 I just notice that he keeps saying that. For one, it’s not true but it’s also misleading as it makes it sound like all 13 members verbally or in writing confirmed exactly what Cowles said. One statement was ten years later, but the majority were 1869 or later. The 1869 statements were around the time that Joseph F Smith was gathering evidence. Joseph F Smith later stated that as he attempted to gather evidence of Joseph’s polygamy (to fend off the government and RLDS missionaries) he was surprised at the total lack of evidence. This is the backdrop for the affidavits. Important details you will not hear from people like Jacob.

@@Commenter2121 I don't think it was that important of a detail unless he was extremely nuanced when he didnt have to be. It is sufficient to know that the council heard what they heard. If anyone commented something that conflicted with another council members testimony we want to hear it. As it stands it is most logical to say 132 is the best candidate of revelation coming out of that meeting.

@@jacobsamuelson3181 This is an absence of evidence argument but sincere question. Do you find at all odd that these high councilman hear this bombshell revelation about plural marriage and the intimate details of Joseph and Emma’s struggles and threats of destruction to women, and none of them say a word about it other than Cowles during the Nauvoo period? Not a letter, journal entry, diary, nothing? One statement 10 years later as saints in Utah are struggling with polygamy and then others 25 years later when these statements were needed. It’s similar with the wives, not one of them claim to be married to Joseph until 25 years later, under those same circumstances. You were married to the prophet of the restoration, and not a single private letter or journal entry? You can make the secrecy argument but that doesn’t fly. Other Nauvoo polygamists were not so careful. I just find it suspicious.

@@Commenter2121 No I don't find it odd at all considering that polygamy was illegal in Illinois and people were literally being massacred for their mere religious presence and for any rumor imaginable. It makes more sense that it was not to be a public statement until a time that would be safer from persecution. As we know from the Navoo Expositor that the breach of public statement plainly lead to death. Question to you. Why do you think Oliver Cowdery was angry at Joseph for his relationship with Fanny Alger? Don't you fell like you have to throw out so much of other people reactions who were close to Joseph out the window?

I think it's going to be great! Jacob has the restored gospel on his side which puts Trent at the disadvantage.

@@jacobsamuelson3181 I hope so.

his debate with Trent Horn won't be on polygamy though it will be on the church in general. Trent Horn probably wouldn't debate on such a specific subject matter of church history.

@@calebwiederhold7910 The "that subject" I'm talking about was what they mentioned in the video, which is whether the Book of Mormon is scripture. That's a tough nut with anyone.

It's always good to hear both sides on an issue

To begin with open the scriptures to refute some of the claims that polygamy is not authorized of the Lord ever. "7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12 Now good luck. It is a messed up situation.

I suggest that you scroll through this comments section and read my posts which contain a lot of historical documentation.

I already have, but I'm thinking of releasing another video on polygamy soon

@@mormonismwiththemurph cool make sure you're frank and talk about everything openly: how your leaders would literally send a guy on a mission and then impregnate the man's wife. How Joseph Smith would proposition marriage to already married women and sleep with them. How, in court, lots of women testified that they slept with Joseph. How Joseph kept a lot of his marriages a secret from Emma, and Emma found out later than Joseph Smith's other plural wives. How Joseph's plural marriages came before he received any revelation. How Joseph was caught in a barn with Fanny Algar having physical relations with her--when no marriage ever took place. and all that.

@@wellsaidgoodheadfred9843 Murph did hours with Brian Hales on the topic. They discuss your claims (1 guy on mission, married men's wives, etc). Brian literally wrote the book on polygamy. Gathering all known data and published in 3 volumes. You would benefit from reading his books.

@@nealljones I know too many Biblical contradictions between the BoM and Bible--so, even If Brian could convince me the polygamy/polyandry was somehow okay, I would still have a lot of very good reasons to doubt Mormonism's validity.

That's where I first heard the argument, I don't know if he got it from RFM or not.

Jacob Vidrine, a amateur scholar, has been making this argument for quite a while. I'm pretty sure Jacob got it from him since he's had more interactions with him.

Please explain Fanny Alger, years before the expositor and one of the causes of Oliver’s excommunication

@@dr33776 That's an easy one. Oliver admitted he was in error and took back his claims during a hearing. The entire idea was set aside and Fanny never commented on it her entire life. It's just a case blown out of proportion from a misunderstanding that Oliver retracted and that enemies of Joseph love to accuse him of despite nothing being there at all.

​​@@whyisgamora3721 LOL 😂 at your CYA ing!!!

Fanny left under a cloud of something having happened. She never denied the relationship, as any 19th century woman would be eager to do if it was a falsehood. And she said it was her own business.

@@lemjwp1756 She never *acknowledged* a "relationship."

Indeed. She has succeeded in starting her own little cult-within-a-cult.

However what I find the most ironic is the fact that she has 13 children, some of which are apparently lgbtq and her child named Brigham tried to drive her into a tree recently. Does she not realize which cult she is a member of

My thought too. Seems like it would make him appear as less of a prophet.

That was the question they couldn't answer with Abraham as well.

He did neither nor, so there's that...

@@hankholiday7792 Joseph Smith was not what?

@jacobsamuelson3181 study Abraham with Dan McCllean. These ancient stories are to teach lessons not necessarily about true historical facts. Either way, polygamy with Abraham wasn't sanctioned by God but a practice.

Yes. Clearly the person who padded Section 132 with gross fakery before it conveniently emerged from Brigham's desk in 1852 had knowledge of the libelous Expositor article. Which proves ... nothing.

Smith's secret polygamy practice was first exposed two years before that.

You asking myself?

Yeah, no need to confuse you with FACTS.

I live in a box.. any views that challenge mine is wrong!!! 🤣🤣🤣

​@@JakobPGrauSure you got the facts flat earther.

Michelle and others like her are at least on the right track. However, the real truth among all the confusing books on the subject, is that the Early church had members sealed to Priesthood leaders. Joseph was NOT marrying these women. Many of these women who wrote in journals didn't understand what Joseph was asking them to do. So rumors spread about him marrying women in the temple. Today many books are written by those who oppose the church and they use these rumors as their so called evidence. Never is rumor evidence. Yes, members of the church including Brigham Young, were not perfect. Joseph was trying to teach them. So members strayed and practiced polygamy without Joseph saying it was approved by the Lord for them to do so. These sealings to Priesthood leaders came to be known as Law of Adoption sealings. They were NOT marriages. So Joseph Smith was NOT a polygamist. All the books written today claiming evidence of him being polygamist are nothing more than modern day rumors based on past rumor. Which is ridiculous! Joseph was only married to Emma. Period!

now you're just rehashing talking points. The #1 error deniers make is their refusal to grasp that circumstances and conditions absolutely necessitated a strictly confidential practice, while condemning the counterfeit practice in their midst.

@@lemjwp1756 All you have is ex post facto rationalizations and the late testimonies of polygamists. Nobody in that era made any distinction. Facts.

and what you have is a fantasy of making hundreds of Josephs closest trusted associates, and women, into liars. Shameful.

I agree. You seem very well informed on this issue. Perhaps you could go on for an episode? I'd love to see someone knowledgeable articulate these points.

This is actually an important point that Isbell pushed and Hansen couldn’t answer. Brian Hales has stated repeatedly that Joseph did deny polygamy, spiritual wifery, community of wives etc, but he never denied “celestial plural marriage”. Of course he didn’t deny it, the term didn’t exist. Utah polygamists admit that they called it spiritual wifery and the Smiths did preach against this by name. Call them liars if you want but at least be more honest about it.

True. Jacob mostly does great work, but he is a willful know-nothing on this issue.

Michelle Stone worships Joseph Smith, therefore she refuses to believe that he was a liar, adulterer, and hypocrite. Every legitimate, professional historian who has published on the subject of Mormon polygamy beginning with Fawn Brodie 80 years ago concurs that Joseph Smith originated and practiced polygamy.

Michelle Stone is a liar who constantly manipulates the information or just blames and slanders Brigham Young. That "in depth" is her saying Brigham Young forced people to lie... even if it was in there own personal journals and people who weren't even in Utah or under Brigham's influence.

Exactly

@@dylanwilliams2202 how many of her episodes have you watched? You’re pretty good at ad hominems

If you claim Joseph did it, in direct contradiction of his perfectly consistent claims to the contrary, then YOU are the conspiracy theorist.

​@@JakobPGrauHis perfectly consistent lies yes.

​@@JakobPGrauI love how your god went to all this trouble to establish his church for the very last time only to have Brigham Young prevail against it within 14 years.

@@lrsvalentine Not only that, but it was apparently god's own special prophet, Joseph Smith, who placed pretty much the entire cabal of evil conspirators into the very positions of power and influence at every level in the church, who made it possible for them to succeed wildly in all of their plots, schemes, lies, counterfeiting, document forging, suborning of perjury, murderous martyring of Joe and Hy, trafficking of women and too many other felonies to mention...and it was god's own special prophet, Joseph Smith, who sustained them in those positions right up to the end, while (by contrast) going into angry terminator mode against the anti-polygamists, like William Law.

… 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 the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. … Who reproached the church with the crime of fornication and polygamy in 1835?

@@dr33776 Law of consecration led some to believe the saints practiced a community of wives. Plus there converts from the Cochranite group, which were formerly practicing polygamy/spiritual wifery.

@@Commenter2121 Thank you. Everyone forgets the Cochranites. Didn't BY's first plural wife, Augusta Cobbs, come from that group?

@@JakobPGrau From what I’ve seen, she was from that area but I don’t believe she was a Cochranite herself. She did leave her husband and five children and married Brigham Young in Nauvoo. So yes, Brigham committed adultery with her and married her as a plural wife prior to Joseph’s death. Her husband later successfully sued her for adultery.

@@Commenter2121 "Law of consecration led some to believe the saints practiced a community of wives." No, the fact that more than 100 people in Nauvoo said that Joseph Smith originated, taught, and practiced plural marriage is what led people to believe it. "Plus there converts from the Cochranite group, which were formerly practicing polygamy/spiritual wifery." The Cochranites had nothing to do with how and when Joseph Smith instituted his own practice of spiritual wifery.

Ask your wife how she feels about sharing you. Bible teaches, cleave unto your wife and none else… Joseph taught this as well. When your done spinning circles and can grasp these 3 views maybe you’ll wake up. Lol

Do you have faith Mohammaed and the Quran were inspired by God? Or what about Warren Jeffs? Or do you use evidence to show they were not?

Likewise Dan

You missed where Isbell got scripture wrong and what is in the scriptures wrong. 2 Samuel 12:8-10.

That would be interesting

@@mormonismwiththemurph Maybe it can be arranged, I wonder who would be qualified and willing.

I agree. I think there are three groups of active members in the church. 1) Those who think polygamy was commanded and of God. 2) Those in Michelle Stone's camp where Joseph never practiced it. 3) Those who know Joseph et al. practiced it but think the principle is not of God. I'm definitely in the third camp.

@@TheRealHawkeye It is interesting to see more of these schisms grow within the active membership. There is also the narrative within Joseph’s polygamy that some subscribe to, that he did do it but realized his error and was trying to repent and root it out of the church prior to his death. As this topic has become more open, I’ve been surprised to see how many of my friends/family believe Joseph did it because the the church says so, but they don’t believe he should have or that polygamy is ever from God. What led you to your conclusion?

If you go to Michelle Stones 132 problems and watch, she addresses all of this in depth.

There is not a single legitimate, professional Mormon historian who agrees with Michelle's opinion on that. If you agree with Michelle's opinions, you are really just saying that you haven't studied the facts for yourselg, and you are truting that Michelle is telling you the truth. Here is what actual historians say on the subject: "[William] Law, a prominent Nauvoo businessman, was solidly devoted to Smith until mid-1843. During the Bennett scandal, he quickly came to Smith's defense, reassuring the Saints that Church leaders did not condone 'spiritual wifery' or any such behavior. Smith held his counselor in such high esteem that he included him in the first small group of male initiates to the endowment ceremony in May 1842. And Law rendered much moral and financial support to a discouraged Smith when Missouri officials were attempting to extradite him on the Boggs case. "'By early 1843, however, Law began to waver in his commitment to Smith. Initial difficulties between the two centered on business matters. . . .But a deeper source of the Laws' disaffection was their detestation of polygamy. In an 1887 interview William explained that Hyrum Smith had shown him the "revelation on celestial marriage" in the fall of 1843. "Hyrum gave it to me in his office," Law said, and "told me to take it home and read it. . . . He and Jane "were just turned upside down by it" . . . William took the document directly to the prophet and commented that it was in contradiction to the Doctrine and Covenants. Smith noted that the section on marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants was "given when the Church was in its infancy, when they were babes, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have some meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation," William wrote. "He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times in its favor.' ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 64-65) "'In early 1843 Austin [Cowles] . . . .played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young, guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles and Parley P. Pratt. These men--the Nauvoo Stake President, his First Counselor, and an eloquent Apostle--would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism. "'Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent. "'Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12. Three of the leading Brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin Cowles and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also remarkable that Marks, Cowles and Soby would openly reject it. This was a watershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history. "'Undoubtedly, Austin soon saw that he could not function as a Church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the High Council minutes, "President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Counselor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council." Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin "was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo." After resigning his presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place." . . . Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed President and selected Austin Cowles as his First Counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was "cut off" from the main LDS Church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the "Nauvoo Expositor," the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the "Expositor" press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that led to his martyrdom.' ("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Todd Compton, pp. 549-50) "'The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law, Joseph's Second Counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion in Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case with which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23, he filed suit against the Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith had been living with Maria Lawrence "in an open state of adultery" from October 12, 1843, to the day of the suit.' "'In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered on May 26: "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one." As polygamy was illegal under U.S. law, Smith had little choice but to openly repudiate the practice. But as is often the case with secret policies that are denied publicly, Smith's credibility would later suffer.'" "'Realistically he must have understood that 33 or more marriages could not be kept a secret forever, and that when they became known the gulf between his public statements and private practice would come back to haunt him.' ("In Sacred Loneliness." by Todd Compton, pp. 476-77) Here is the legal affidavit of former Nauvoo high councilor David Fullmer: "Be it remembered that on this fifteenth day of June A.D. 1869 personally appeared beforme me, James Jack, a Notary Public in and for said County, David Fullmer, who was by me Sworn in due form and upon his oath Saith; that on or about the twelfth fourth day of August A.D. 1843 while in meeting with the High Council, (he being a member thereof) in Hyrum Smith's brick office in the City of Nauvoo, county of Hancock, State of Illinois; Dunbar Wilson made enquiry in relation to the Subject of a plurality of wives as there were rumors afloat respecting it, and he was "Satisfied there was something in those rumors, and he wanted to know what it was." Upon which the said Hyrum Smith Stepped across the road to his residence and Soon returned, bringing with him a copy of the revelation on Celestial Marriage given to Joseph Smith July twelfth A.D. 1843 and read the Same to the High Council and bore testimony to its truth. The said David Fullmer further Saith that to the best of his memory and belief, the following named persons were present William Marks, Austin A. Cowles, [erasure] Samuel Bent, A. Cutler [in pencil] George W. Harris, Dunbar Wilson, William Huntington, Levi Jackman, Aaron Johnson, Thomas Grover, David Fullmer, [erasure] James Allred, and Leonard Soby. And the said David Fullmer further Saith, that Wm. Marks, Austin A. Cowles, and Leonard Soby were the only persons present who did not receive the Revelation and testimony of Hyrum Smith and that all the others did receive it from the teaching and testimony of the Said Hyrum Smith. And further that the copy of Said Revelation on Celestial Marriage published in the Deseret News Extra of September fourteenth A.D. 1852 is a true copy of the Same." Here is the legal affidavit of former Nauvoo high councilor Thomas Grover: "Be it remembered that on this Sixth day of July A.D. 1869 personally appeared before me James Jack, a Notary Public in and for said county Thos. Grover who was by me sworn in due form of law and upon his oath saith that the affidavit of David Fullmer, before me James Jack, on the fifteenth day of June A.D. 1869 is true and correct. And the said Thomas Grover further saith that Hyrum Smith reasoned upon said Revelation for about an hour, clearly explaining the same, and then enjoined it upon said Council, to receive and acknowledge the same, or they would be damned, and further, that from the day that William Marks, A. A. Cowles and L. Soby refused to receive said Revelation as from God they continued to dwindle until they appostatized." End quotes. THIS is how legitimate, professional historians work: they research the statements of the various people involved in order to tell the complete story of historical events. The former Nauvoo high councilors who swore their affidavits included some men who accepted polygamy and migrated to Utah, and some who opposed polygamy and left the church. But the fact that they ALL testified that Hyrum Smith presented the revelation on celestial marriage during that August 12, 1843 meeting tells us that it happened exactly as the men said it did.

@@randyjordan5521 Michelle has done more thorough research than the other historians, if you are serious you need to look at what she has done. The fact that you are quoting Todd Compton shows that your arguments are weak. Michelle did a whole episode w him. She has refuted all of this that you bring up, she is very thorough, it would take too long to do this as a response to a comment on you tube. If you want to know, you need to do your homework.

@@Hmcc0712 You are wrong on every single sentence you wrote. You clearly haven't read Compton's book, nor any of the other numerous histories re: Joseph Smith's polygamy practice which have been published over the last 80 years. So you are speaking from a position of complete ignorance of the subject. You believe in Michelle's productions because she tells you what you want to hear and believer re: Joseph Smith and polygamy. You possess the ideal mindset and attitude to be sucked into a cult. As for your comment that I haven't done my homework, I have studied this issue for nearly 30 years. I have been refuting Michelle's assertions on her KZfaq channel for nearly two years now. A couple of months ago, Michelle invited me to do an episode of her series because she recognizes from my hundreds of comments and posting the historical documentation that I am very well informed on the issues. I replied to Michelle that it would be pointless to appear on her program because she would just repeat the same incorrect, nonsensical assertions which she has been making for two years now. So instead, I post on these comments sections of these videos in order to correct the false assertions and misconceptions that ignorant people such as yourself write. That is why I quoted from legitimate historians and posted the legal affidavits from the eyewitness participants to the events in my post to which you responded here. You clearly did not bother to read a word of my post, and that is why you are so incorrect and ignorant on the issue. You blindly trust in what Michelle says, instead of reading and learning what the people involved in the events said and did. If you want to learn the actual facts, I suggest that you scroll through this comments section and read all of my posts.

@@randyjordan5521 You don’t know what I’ve read and why I think the way I do. Your public service of correcting everyone is not going to work until you consider each piece of evidence which you haven’t done, I can tell because of your comments.

@@Hmcc0712 All you're accomplishing here is revealing more of your ignorance.

Why is this such a problem?

If Brian Hales' website is correct then what's the problem? There are many researchers and historians that have come to a consensus based on the historical evidence, and if it's condensed into someone's website then why is that a problem?

"He then acts like the Expositor affidavits and high council meeting are some brand new bombshell pieces of evidence that nobody has ever seen or considered." Of course they aren't new, but the problem with Michelle Stone and her fellow travelers (of which you are apparently one) is that she rejects the combined testimony of all of those diverse people, even though all of their affidavits state the same facts. For example, former high councilor Leonard Soby was disfellowshipped along with Sidney Rigdon by the apostles three months after Joseph's death because of their opposition to the apostles' authority as well as polygamy. Soby later settled in New Jersey. In 1883, RLDS church president Joseph Smith III sent a messenger to Soby to get him on the record as to what Hyrum Smith had presented in that August 12, 1843 high council meeting. Soby swore an affidavit to this in 1886: "on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, I was a resident of Nauvoo, Hancock County, State of Illinois, and being a member of the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was present at a meeting of said council at the time herein above stated; Thomas Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fullmer, William Huntington and others; when Elder Hyrum Smith, after certain explanations, read the revelation on celestial marriage. "I have read and examined carefully said revelation, since published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of said Church, and say to the best of my knowledge and belief it is the same, word for word, as the revelation then read by Hyrum Smith. "The deponent says further, that the revelation did not originate with Brigham Young, as some persons have falsely stated, but was received by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and read in the High Council by his authority as a revelation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Because Soby had no affinity for the Utah church, and had left Mormonism completely decades earlier, he certainly had no reason to lie 43 years later about what Hyrum Smith had presented in that 1843 meeting. So in order for Michelle Stone & friends to believe that Joseph and Hyrum Smith had nothing to do with polygmay, they have to posit that Nauvoo polygamy opponents Austin Cowles and Leonard Soby were lying, as well as Utah church devotees David Fullmer and Thomas Groves, who swore similar testimony. To believe that all of those people told the same lies, spanning over decades, and maintaining their stories to their deaths, is intellectually dishonest. It is ironically hypocritical for Michelle & friends to say that they are opposed to polygamy, but they reject the testimonies of Nauvoo polygamy opponents such as Cowles and Soby, as well as Sidney Rigdon, for that matter.

"He is essentially just regurgitating Brian Hales website." It's a common tactic for Joseph Smith polygamy deniers to establish a "villain" or a group of villains on which to "blame" the historical record re: Joseph Smith and polygamy. Brian Hales is the current "whipping boy" for the deniers to attack. But in actual fact, Brian Hales' websites document very little information that hasn't already been published for many decades by various historians. For example, Jerald and Sandra Tanner's Utah Lighthouse Ministry website has archived a lot of that history for about the last 30 years. Brian Hales' websites are merely the first internet site that is devoted exclusively to polygamy, and has compiled a lot of the documentation on a single site.

@@PeppermintZeal I guess that’s where I see the issue. Not sure how much time you’ve spent on Hales website but I believe he often takes very questionable sources and then presents them as fact to support the history. So your question makes the assumption the Hales website includes overwhelming ironclad sources, and that’s where I differ.

Are you aware that another famous LDS historian also considers the idea that Joseph added some of his own thoughts and ideas into 132, and that it wasn’t all revelation?

@@Commenter2121 Are you just going to throw that out there without any details? What was the point of that comment? Am I just supposed to say “why no I didn’t know that” and assume it’s factual? Please provide more detail otherwise I’ll assume you’re simply stirring the pot.

I watched the relevant portions of John Dehlin’s interview with Patrick Mason (Part 2) and yep he’s pretty mealy-mouthed about things. Like he wants to be jello-like so you can’t pin him down. I think it’s good to be pliable in your thinking but at what point are you fashioning a god of your own making? When are you so open-minded that your brain false out?

@@jerry_phillips Correct, I watched that interview too and he seemed try and imply that some questionable verses in the BOM may have also been his own interpretations from his own mind. Regarding my comment on 132, Don Bradley stated that although he believes Joseph did dictate 132, he also leaves the door open to the idea that Joseph was including some thoughts or verses from his own mind given the situation that he was facing. I gather it’s just his way to reconcile some of the troubling teachings. Many struggle with 132 because it sounds like a different God than what we see in other sections.

@@Commenter2121Well, if the the BoM of start out with a more Trinitarian model and then get edited later to remove that as new things are learned, I’m sure that happened in everything. I mean, it doesn’t really make Joseph look good when he had to keep up appearances with Emma by repeating sealings so she wouldn’t know he’d already done it before in some cases.

I agree with this position completely, according to the knowledge I currently have. I will add, I'm open to Joseph being commanded to do it AND perhaps being commanded (or being allowed per his pleading) to keep it clandestine. It's hard enough to believe the Lord commanded it in the first place, of course, but it's even harder to believe the Lord commanded it AND said "be blatant about it, never mind the risk."

Ilk? What a Christlike word with which to bludgeon those with whom you disagree!

@@JakobPGrau Why would that word be a problem? It’s not a pejorative. It simply means her and those who share her beliefs.

It's used perjoratively

I don't know

She said that she received powerful witness of the Book of Mormon and testimony of Joseph Smith and that was enough to hold on to the Church for a time. She also has threatened the leadership that if she was taken out they would "lose a powerful member". I'm taking it she would bring a lot of her subscribers with her and set up her own Church book of Mormon club.

She says there is a "history" of prophets making mistakes (committing sins) or going against God's will. Like Abraham with Hagaar. Brigham thru Joseph F Smith perpetuated this sinful behavior made by Brigham.

@@rustopher65 I understand that’s her position but how does she reconcile later prophets having the keys of authority? Seems like that big of a mistake would spell the end of their keys.

⁠@@jerry_phillipsHansen said this in the debate, but what Isbell argues for is basically Mormon Protestantism. Authority was lost, but there is no need for authority, we can just have a personal relationship with God and we’re good. Idk if she’s in the same camp, but maybe they don’t feel the need to renounce their membership if authority isn’t a problem we need to worry about.

Explain polygamy in the Bible. If not commanded how was it anything less than adultery?

@@jacobsamuelson3181 I'm certain that Joseph simply created Polygamy based on his readings/studying the OT....and thought..."if Prophets in the OT could have plural wives, why not me?

@@krismurphy7711 I don't think Joseph would be that shallow. Most likely he was reading about Abraham and thought "Was this guy the Father of our religion promised kids as the sands of the sea, what would it look like for him in heaven when half his kids are Muslim?" Would he lose half his kids or not? How strong is marriage and family in the afterlife? Was polygamy wicked? Is polygamy of God or was it a mistake of Biblical proportions? Let me ask God." And so he did. It is in Joseph's nature to always ask God for things he didn't understand. James 1:5.

Oh look the exmo from Cali can’t resist his anti antics

@@krismurphy7711 Bad reasoning. Joseph's inspired revisions to the OT more fully condemn polygamy.

In what ways was it revised and where's the proof?

Evidence?

There is zero evidence to support that theory. People said that Joseph Smith stated verbiage from the "revelation on celestial marriage" during his conversations with them about plural marriage beginning in July 1842. Also, six men who were present in a Nauvoo high council meeting on August 12, 1843, testified that Hyrum Smith read the revelation to them, and that it was the same document, stating the same verbiage about plural marriage, as found in D&C 132 today. Not a single person in Nauvoo said that Brigham Young or anyone other than Joseph or Hyrum Smith introduced plural marriage to them. If Smith had produced a revelation which did not include plural marriage, Smith's doctrine and practice would not have been opposed by anyone. Note that none of the polygamy dissenters (William Law, Austin Cowles, etc.) accused Brigham Young of originating or preaching the doctrine against Joseph's teachings. They ALL said it came from Joseph.

And this is why Michelle Stone's work is so important. Joseph was an honest man.

_"The facts are clearly on the "polygamy denier" side"_ LOL Not even close, you are of the same mind as Flat Earthers. _"That section is internally inconsistent..."_ Everything you said in this part is just wrong. You didn't give examples though. _"the veracity and authenticity of the text of 132 hangs solely on the credibility of William Clayton who was not the most savory of characters."_ No it doesn't, multiple people outside of William Clayton said that 132 was read to them before 1852. This is just a lie. You trying to slander William Clayton doesn't change the fact Joseph practiced polygamy. _"The Church refuses to release his journals to the public. Why?"_ Because that takes time. Why is it that you people think the worst if something doesn't go on your time table? _"what they attested to as having been read IS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT in several key aspects to what we have as 132 today"_ No, not all. Everyone said that 132 was the same thing read in the Nauvoo counsil. _"This limit on wives is found nowhere in 132."_ D&C 132:61-65. Considering Jane Law only read it once and was going off of memory, it is a minor detail that she thought it was a limit of 10 instead of just an example of 10. That is just how memory works, you all are intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. _"No one denies that Joseph revieved a revelation on marriage ... No one denies that said revelation was about marriage"_ Uh yea, polygamy deniers 100% deny all this. Know your own arguments. _"Joseph’s revelation addressed the possibility of eternal monogamous marriage"_ In response to the Expositor Affidavits, both Joseph and Hyrum in the Nauvoo city council confirmed that these statements were not fabrications out of nothing, that indeed there was an authentic revelation received and read to the Nauvoo High Council. They even admitted that it was about polygamy, but they said it was just about polygamy in former days and/or in the afterlife. Nothing was said about Monogamy. These minutes were published in the Nauvoo Neighbor on June 19, 1844. _"No one said that BY "went back to the nauvoo expositor" to write 132"_ Jacob Isbell literally said that in their debate.

Why are we talking about Pastor Jeff?

“Just follow the prophet” this is what makes me hate church these days… don’t worry about agency just follow in line… take the shot, be a good global citizen and dont ask god these things… follow me!

All this is literally addressed in the video. Watch the video

God is irrelevant to the question of Smith’s polygamy. Further more there are 50+ witnesses that he practiced it. He was also accused by multiple different groups of unrelated people. It’s not one conspiracy, it’s several independent conspiracies if Smith was a monogamist. That takes far more creative mental gymnastics to explain away than say a guy who claimed he could see buried treasures with a magical rock was lying along with his wife and brother.

​@@dinosaurparkandsuch6936 For someone who believes the Bible was founded by a primarily polygamist group of people, the question of Joseph's polygamy is absolutely relevant to God. Whether you believe in God or not.

@@jacobsamuelson3181 the Bible wasn’t “founded”. The debate is if Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, Gods opinion on polygamy is irrelevant to that question.

@@dinosaurparkandsuch6936 I don't even know where one end starts and finishes with your comment. Bible didn't just up and pop out of thin air now did it. It had founders. God doesn't have opinions. He only has truths. Joseph Smith claims to be a prophet so God's truth is very relevant to any practice he chooses to engage in. Same as the founders of the Bible.