Was Joseph Smith actually a polygamist?? | with Brian Hales
For many decades, there has been speculation that Joseph Smith (first prophet of the LDS Church) did not practice polygamy. The speculation has ebbed and flowed over the years, though the conspiracy has picked up steam more recently.
LDS scholar and friend of Saints Unscripted, Brian Hales, agreed to address the controversy on today’s episode. Brian addresses accounts of polygamy, how different types of scholars navigate history, and how to address specific claims made against Joseph Smith’s polygamy.
While the subject of polygamy is uncomfortable and might be happily dismissed altogether, the truth is that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. We aren’t defending the practice but rather acknowledging true historical events.
Thank you, Brian, for your time and expertise!
SUBSCRIBE:
saintsunscripted/subscribe
Follow Us:
Facebook: facebook.com/SaintsUnscripted/
Instagram: instagram.com/saintsunscripted/
Website: saintsunscripted.com/
Follow the Hosts:
David: instagram.com/davidesnell/
Taylor: instagram.com/tsyorg/
Allex: instagram.com/allex_lennon/
Kaitlyn: instagram.com/kait_fotheringham/
Sabrina: instagram.com/srhymasfuller/
Jaxon: instagram.com/jaxomus/
Cam: instagram.com/camcondie/
From Smith’s journal entry: On this law? Well, it is the law of marriage in general. No man shall have but one wife. It seems pretty straight forward.
Brian Hales keeps hammering on transparency and scholarship, but fails to provide any convincing evidence beyond hearsay to support his view.
Hearsay or heresy?
I find it fascinating, yet troubling that it's acceptable to believe that all those allegedly involved in polygamy while Joseph was alive could lie to protect themselves. But, if you believe those same people lied to protect themselves after Joseph's death then you believe in some great conspiracy.
I think we can all agree that if the Mormon religion isn't true, then there certainly was some great conspiracy that took place. Just like most other false religions.
Freemasons.. where Brigham and company took most of the false temple covenant.
We usually call that "the hypocrisy of the Left", but I think it's just what evil does. They will lie and censor the truth without their conscious bothering them, but at the same time, if they believe the truth will help their cause, they will accept it. However, accepting the truth will eventually expose their lies, not that they care.
Exactly!! It's mind-boggling. The official narrative is that all the Nauvoo church leaders who denied polygamy were lying about it, and if you believe that, you're fine. But if you believe that some - including the prophet Joseph, his wife Emma, and his co-president Hyrum - were telling the truth, you're a conspiracy theorist. I don't get the reluctance to look at the records with that possibility in mind.
I’m really searching for truth in this right now and looking at what everyone says on all sides, lots of questions. I know I’m not very far into it, but my first question is, How is it OK to add words to someone else’s journal? That just seems so wrong. I would not want someone “expanding“ my journal after I die to change the meaning of what I said. I don’t think anyone nowadays would accept that as an OK thing to do, I highly doubt that their integrity was less back then. I apologize if I missed it but did they say who expanded the journal? Now I’m really worried at how many times this has been done, and is it still being done? I just don’t see how it’s an honest thing to do, to expand on someone else’s words, especially after they’re dead.
You should look into the work done by Hannah Stoddard. She has done sooo much research about Joseph Smith and is at the head of the Joseph Smith Foundation. She explains things very well.
Yes, sadly it is still being done. There is a channel called "IBelieveJoseph" where he shows that changes are still being made to Joseph's journals. It's been done several times from what I understand :(
I'll second the I Believe Joseph channel. Plus, there's also a very well researched book set called Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, which you can find free online.
Joseph Smith "expanded" on the Bible and many other things. So maybe that's why they think it is "okay"?
That's a super important thing to point out, that needs to be referenced in the video.
I reject Brian’s and the church’s interpretation of events. It’s complete mental and spiritual gymnastics to have to accept that Joseph and Hyrum, co-presidents of the church, were somehow righteously lieing through their teeth while simultaneously having sex with dozens of women…. Mormon polygamy was abominable. Period. Full stop. What we know Brigham and Heber did and how they treated women was abominable. I would have rejected it then, and I reject it now. And they clearly had every motive to cook the books and pin it on Joseph., because Joseph and Hyrum rejected it in no uncertain terms. This “carefully worded denials” idea is insulting. No, if they were doing it then they they LIED… Joseph was consistent in his written and public statements. Brigham and Heber clearly changed their story repeatedly. I believe BY and HCK are the liars and the polygamy never was of God…. Did Joseph lie? Maybe…. But that can’t be proven, and hasn’t been proven despite all the efforts from the church. Both sides have strong cases but I’ll take Joseph at his word and let the chips fall. Brian and the church are kicking against the pricks, continuing to defend Brigham’s polygamy, while the church itself outright denies its doctrinality and clearly wishes it never happened. People deserve to hear both sides. PEOPLE DESERVE TO HEAR BOTH SIDES. People like Brian who condescendingly try to cover up the mounds of evidence from the other side are anything but transparent and in my opinion are active truth obfuscaters. The evidence is strong that Joseph is innocent of these accusations. People deserve to know this side of the story and the church is leading souls to hell by covering it up in the name of self preservation.
You nailed these polygamist apologists to the wall!
🙏 Amen! 🙌
If they were having sex with DOZENS OF WOMEN, where are the children? Where are all the descendents for those marriages? Joseph had 9 children with Emma, but NONE with other women. So how is he having sex with dozens of women. You have no idea what you're talking.
I second everything you’ve said!🙌🏻
Isn’t it telling that polygamy, an “essential doctrine” is so important that even in todays America, where marriage, gender and fornication have virtually no limitations in the public eye, the church has made absolutely no effort to re establish said practice. Maybe it’s because it wasn’t such a Godly practice after all.
@31:50 this man who repeatedly states he is a transparentcist brings up William McLellin and relates the story as though William McLellin is a reputable and credible source. A transparacist would not state that William McLellin was an original member of the 12 who was excommunicated, an attempt to legitamize his claim, but leave out the fact that he wasn't just excommunicated but he became an enemy of the church and of Joseph. That he asked the sherriff for permission to flog Joseph and he robbed the Smith home while Joseph was in Liberty jail. Yet Brian wants people to believe that, after Joseph's death, Emma would confide anything to such a man let alone anything so personal. He also leaves out the fact that in the letter to Joseph lll William writes Fanny Hill and name that comes from "Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" A transparentcist would provide all the important information,, not just what would support a narrative.
Brian’s explanation of the meaning of Section 101 in the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants makes no sense.
Limiting the body of evidence is the only way you can advance the argument that Joseph was a polygamist. You have to throw out or ignore all contemporaneous evidence and what Joseph, Hyrum, Emma, William and those close to Joseph stated, and opt instead to focus on claims made decades later by a group of polygamist trying to justify and defend the practice.
You have to throw away the entire book of Genesis if you want to argue that polygamy isn’t biblical.
You're ignoring all the evidence of Joseph Smith's polygamy. Both the LDS church and the church of christ (EMMA'S CHURCH!!), Not to mention virtually every Mormon and anti-mormon scholar are in agreement, JOSEPH SMITH WAS A POLYGAMIST!! You're pissing into the wind dude.
@@D.LeviBoillot-sj5kf No one is arguing that polygamy isn't found in the Bible, just that it doesn't come from God. I am well aware that Lamech, who worshipped Satan, was the first person recorded in the Bible to practice polygamy. I'm also aware that God's design for marriage was established in the Garden of Eden and never changed, and that God never commanded anyone to practice polygamy.
@@D.LeviBoillot-sj5kfthe Bible recorded what they were doing, not whether it was right or wrong.
@@GrandmaKnightLife and yet God still decided to make his covenant with abraham, in spite of his polygamy...
A couple things im not surprised was left out of this discussion. Joseph smith denial of have more wifes than Emma in 1843(44?). Polyandry. and Brigham Young "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy"
Hoseph Smith History 1:33 "He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people." Hypocrit: A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs. It is well documented that Joseph Smith taught against polygamy and denied any involvement in the practice. So is the point of this video to prove Joseph Smith was a liar and a hypocrit? Wouldn't that be speaking evil of the good name of Joseph Smith? I think the angel was right, but where are those that speak good of Joseph's name if not in the church he founded? It makes me sad really.
Very weak arguments, he conveniently leaves out that Joseph's personal journal was changed by somebody other than Joseph to change Joseph's original attempt. He is correct in that he is an amateur historian not understanding primary sources and 2nd , 3rd, etc sources
Do you believe that Joseph did not practice polygamy?
Yes or yes?
Speaking of D&C 132 as the July 12, 1843 revelation assumes A PRIORI that the revelation read to the Nauvoo high council is indeed the same as D&C 132. There is compelling evidence that the revelation is not identical to D&C 132. Why must we resort to implied pejoratives like “amateurish” to discredit people who assess the same data differently than us?
What is the "compelling evidence" and have you read my treatise on the high council evidence that I've already published?
@@brianhales8971 Yes, I have read it, I’m pretty sure. I understand there is also compelling evidence that D&C 132 is the same as the July 12, 1843 revelation. So I don’t call those who believe as much amateurs. The fact that William Law states that he distinctly remembers the original revelation read to him by Hyrum being much shorter than D&C 132 is worth considering, even if Law maintained that it still taught plural marriage. Law had motives to destroy Joseph’s reputation, in retaliation for his own adultery being called out by Joseph. The theological differences and departure from scriptural precedent in D&C 132 also make it difficult to believe that it is all an authentic revelation. And Joseph saying he taught the stronger doctrines publicly, while his polygamy was supposedly private. I’m not opposed to polygamy in all cases. My relationship with the church and God are independent of what happened with polygamy in the 1840s.
It’s funny that Brian is talking about the “non-historians” because he’s a retired anesthesiologist who’s a hobby historian. I’m grateful for the work that he’s done, but he was not doing unbiased work. He was doing work to try to prove that Joseph was a polygamist. He says that there’s contemporaneous evidence of D&C 132 as a revelation on July 12. I can’t remember who it was, but someone witnessed that it was only like 2 pages and W. Clayton’s version was 10 pages long. So it’s very likely that it was a revelation on eternal marriage period. Not on polygamy. Supposedly Kingsbury’s copy of D&C 132 was the copy that was burned by Emma, yet the church still has it. Don’t you think it’s odd that J. S. supposedly dictated a revelation from years prior, by heart, without the Urim and Thumim? Isn’t it a conspiracy theory that Joseph Smith outright lied (not carefully worded denials like B. Hales states) about practicing polygamy in every way, yet people decades later claimed that he was and now we’re supposed to just believe that? Look up Hemlock Knocks polygamy and it will bring up all of the first and second hand accounts of Joseph denying and condemning polygamy. The only claims that Joseph DID practice polygamy comes from very weak accounts decades after his death. It’s extremely important to look at these claims with your own eyes. Also, Michelle Stone at 132 Problems has laid everything out in immense detail (who Brian Hales treats very badly). I have read so many accounts of women who practiced polygamy and I haven’t read any happy accounts of it. Even if Phoebe’s quote from Michelle Stone’s video isn’t true. Long lives the miserable accounts of many abused women. And then they quit doing polygamy and they were abandoned. The account from 1880 that Brian quoted was 36 years after developing trauma bonding. Brian is creating his own Streisand effect. If we have to choose between Joseph and Brigham…. 🤔 is that even a contest? Brigham has done so many evil things and produced so many evil teachings. The list of records from “all of these accounts” is from the temple lot case 47 YEARS after Joseph’s death. Quality over quantity. The women who testified in the affidavits claiming to be Joseph’s wives were all current wives of “higher ups” like Brigham. An actual historian who worked on JS papers said that they were able to release 75% of the work. What’s in the 25% that’s left? In their OWN worded, Joseph, Hyrum and Emma ALL condemned polygamy and denied all of the claims of them being polygamists. Jacob 2:30 following Jacob and the Lord calling polygamy an abomination, whoredom, gross crime, etc. did not say, but if I want a bunch of babies, then go ahead and abuse women through polygamy. It’s saying, if I (the Lord) DO curse the land because you’re being gross and practicing polygamy, then raise up a righteous group of people/children unto him and then the Lord will command/guide them. Otherwise, just don’t do it in the first place. Jacob 2 is a chiasmus. It’s emphasizing what has already been said, it’s not going to bring up a new topic at the peak (vs 30). The ultimate evidence though is the original D&C 101 which says, “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.” Brigham announced the practice of polygamy 8 years after Joseph’s death to the saints. This original section 101 was still in D&C until decades later when D&C 132 was magically found in Brigham’s desk that came across the plains and added to the doctrine and covenants. At that time 101 was taken out. Lastly, the church hasn’t released William Clayton’s journals which were all written in one sitting. There’s no variety in handwriting or change in pens like what happens in contemporaneous journals. So what is being withheld from the public in these journals?
"He says that there’s contemporaneous evidence of D&C 132 as a revelation on July 12. I can’t remember who it was, but someone witnessed that it was only like 2 pages and W. Clayton’s version was 10 pages long. So it’s very likely that it was a revelation on eternal marriage period. Not on polygamy." At least six members of the Nauvoo High Council testified that Hyrum Smith read the revelation in a meeting on August 12, 1843. One of them, Austin Cowles, swore this in an affidavit in May 1844: " In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revealtion in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; lst the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that "David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah." Considering that that high council meeting occurred one month after Joseph Smith dictated the document to Clayton---and Cowles' affidavit leaves no doubt that the document Hyrum read introduced plural marriage---then that corroborates Clayton's account. Another former high councilor who was in that meeting, Leonard Soby, swore this in an affidavit: "Be it remembered that on the 23rd, day of March' in the year 1886, before me, Joshua W. Roberts, Notary Public for the city of Beverly;, county of Burlington, State of New Jersey, Leonard Soby of said city county and State was by me duly sworn, and upon his oath saith that on or about the 12th day of August, A. D. 1843, I was a resident of Nautooo, 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 here in above stated. Thomas Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fulmer, 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 s?iy to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is the same word for word as the revelation then read by Hyrum Smith. "The deponant 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 said High Council by his authority, as a revelation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Soby's testimony was sought out because of RLDS apologists of the day who were asserting that Joseph Smith did not originate polygamy. It's ironic that there are Utah Mormons today who are trying to challenge historical facts which were settled more than a century ago.
"Don’t you think it’s odd that J. S. supposedly dictated a revelation from years prior, by heart, without the Urim and Thumim?" It's no more odd than any of the other revelations he dictated over 16 years.
"Look up Hemlock Knocks polygamy and it will bring up all of the first and second hand accounts of Joseph denying and condemning polygamy. The only claims that Joseph DID practice polygamy comes from very weak accounts decades after his death." LOL. I have refuted a lot of that guy's assertions, and he has failed to even respond to me. Your second statement here is utterly false. There are NUMEROUS accounts of Smith's polygamy published during his lifetime. The blow-ups with Martha Brotherton, Nancy Rigdon, and John C. Bennett over polygamy were all published in 1842. The satirical poem "Buckeye's Lamentation," the affidavits in the "Nauvoo Expositor", and Joseph H. Jackson's account of his dealings with Joseph Smith all include info about his polygamy practice, and they were all published during his lifetime. In fact, Joseph ordered the printing press of the Expositor destroyed BECAUSE it revealed his secret polygamy practice. So, your assertion is a denial of established historical facts.
" Michelle Stone at 132 Problems has laid everything out in immense detail (who Brian Hales treats very badly)." LOL. I have been refuting Michelle's assertions for several months now. She has not refuted a single fact I've given her, and she mostly refuses to even respond to the evidence such as I've given you here. Michelle just wants to believe that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, so she's just in emotional denial of the facts.
@@randyjordan5521 Yes, I do believe that Michelle Brady Stone teaches false history and that she would be wise to stop. I have watched over decades the spiritual trajectory of people who disagree with the doctrines of the Church, and the outcome isn't always desirable from the perspective of testimony in truth.
2:41 Mr Hales discredits himself from the get go and told a flat out lie and should apologize. Community of Christ has no official stance on whether JS practiced or taught polygamy. Some might have an opinion he does but many, many think otherwise. This man does not speak for our church and what a way to tear the bridges our two churches have been trying to build with each other lately.
_"Community of Christ has no official stance on whether JS practiced or taught polygamy."_ LOL The Community of Christ has historically held that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy. There claim was that Joseph never practiced polygamy and because we (LDS Church) did we aren't the true Church. There was literally a court case fought between us and the temple lot vs the Community of Christ about who owned the temple lot in Independence and the Community of Christ was saying it was they were the true successors and whether or not Joseph practiced polygamy was the main reason they gave, which the Community of Christ said he didn't. From the Community of Christ's own website "The early RLDS Church (1860-1960) consistently opposed the doctrine and fought against the assertion by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Mormon] that Joseph Smith Jr. advocated this practice as part of a divine plan. Joseph Smith III, son of the founding prophet and first prophet-president of the RLDS Church (1860-1914), spent much of his life trying to clear his father’s name from the stigma of polygamy and polygamous doctrine" They also have gone back on it because the evidence of Joseph Smith practicing polygamy is just that overwhelming and saying on their website "Research findings point to Joseph Smith Jr. as a significant source for plural marriage teaching and practice at Nauvoo"
@@dylanwilliams2202 they didn’t go back on it. They say they accept whether their members believe it or don’t. That statement was released in response to previous notions that they didn’t accept members who disagree with it. Most of the traditional RLDS have broken off decades ago anyway. The CoC do not represent traditional RLDS beliefs and haven’t for a long time.
@@dylanwilliams2202 I know what my own church’s stance on the matter is. I’ve been an active member all my life. You are completely wrong.
@@Maryel_R_R_Palmer Yes that’s exactly right.
@@EdmundPatak _"You are completely wrong."_ No, the RLDS Church has always held that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy and that is a historical fact. Are you really going to sit here and try and distance the Community of Christ for it's RLDS past and say "The RLDS has held it but the Community of Christ never has"? Don't be that guy.
Joseph Smith Jr always preached against polygamy publicly. From. The. Pulpit. JS Jr didn't hide anything, got tarred and feathered and eventually killed testifying of the gospel, so there is no possible way that he would deny polygamy if he was practicing it. All the evidence that he did do it is extremely late and from dubious sources, OR obviously tampered with. Brian has a very serious problem with basic logic.
What Brian is saying is provide your scholarship and he'll provide his. Brian already addressed what Joseph said about polygamy, he didn't ignore that there was types of polygamy practices he was against and should be addressed but polygamy as a form of plural eternal marriage was not one of them in which he engaged. You have to realize that Joseph got tarred and feathered for more things than just polygamy. He was tarred and feathered in the same way Jesus was spit at and whipped because people didn't understand the higher law that was given. They just assumed the polygamy Joseph practiced was the polygamy other types of people were practicing at that time which was incorrect.
why was he tarred and feathered?
Um... Brian openly said that Joseph also lied to civil authorities in some cases. Logic and reason seem to dictate that Joseph may have denied the practice publicly to avoid persecution or harassment.
@@whatsup3270 becuase small-minded people fear things they don't understand and generally hate change. Tarring and feathering was a huge thing, even going back to colonial America (70 recorded incidents from 1766-1776 for example).
@@DannyAGray I didn't say "Brian openly said that Joseph also lied to civil authorities in some cases." Check out: mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Hales-JMH-7-2018-Denying-the-Undeniable.pdf
Regarding Emma’s statement to her son that Joseph didn’t have any other wives. She is recorded saying that on 4 other occasions to various sources… It wasn’t William being dishonest, that’s what she consistently stated.
Where's your source? I only know of the two instances. The first where she said he did, and the other on her death bed (where some say she may have been experiencing dementia), saying he didn't.
Funny that the world hates polygamy but has no problem with fornication. You can have sex with as many partners as you want, but if you want to marry them...
No kidding. Not just fornication, but all manner of unholy practices. Sinners of today get to throw the first stone.
Never thought of it that way but so true!
Funny that Mormons hate gay marriage, but have no problem with their prophets marrying children. Humans, man
Where did you read that?
@@whatsup3270 No need to read about it. We're living in it.
If the Last Testimony of Sister Emma is false in relation to plural marriage, then it can also be false about the use of the seer stone in the translation of the golden plates.
💯 I am the end times Davidic servant Elias the prophet. I have been time traveling to witness Joseph translating the plates. He was using the interpreters- clear stones set in silver bows fashion to a best plate. That’s what I saw with my own natural eyes. #DavidicServant #endtimesservant #kingDavidAPrince
Brian’s explanation of “the law” in Joseph’s statement was a pretty big stretch. He clearly taught against it and denied any allegations that he had any wife besides Emma. Another classic statement by him: "I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. . . . I am innocent of all these charges. . . . What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." -Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6:410-411
Hi, This is hardly a blanket statement condemning polygamy and anything like it. Right? JS says he was accused of polygamy but JS could only find one wife. Hmmm. This is exactly the language of someone with more than one wife who is trying to respond to accusations without lying. If your assumptions are true, why didn't JS deny all forms of polygamy, which he could have easily done. Instead, he chose words to not disclose all the facts, which Illinois state authorities would undoubtedly have used against him (and would have if he had not been killed Jun 27, 1844).
@@brianhales8971 Brian, Joseph is clearly communicating that he only had one wife. Regarding his words and actions against polygamy in general, he reiterated in the Times and Seasons the original D&C 101 statement that said: "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." (Time and Seasons, vol. 3, pp. 909) The Nauvoo Stake President and close friend to Joseph, William Marks, said about Joseph's actions and thoughts on polygamy: “[Brother Joseph] said that he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the church, and we retired by ourselves. I will give his words verbatim, for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of polygamy. He said it eventually would prove the overthrow of the church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion made to put it down. He said that he would go before the Congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High Council, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression, and I must sever them from the church, unless they made ample satisfaction.” (Saints' Herald, vol. 1, pp. 22-23) In response to polygamy John Taylor wrote under Joseph’s direction: “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 impostor. 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.” (Times and Seasons vol. 6, pp. 490-491 Joseph wrote: “As we have lately been credibly informed that… Hiram Brown, has been preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, State of Michigan; This is to notify him and the church in general, that he has been cut off from the church for his iniquity… - JOSEPH SMITH, HYRUM SMITH, Presidents of said Church."-Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 423
@@brianhales8971 Joseph undeniably taught and acted against polygamy. It is an enormous stretch to say otherwise. And whether or not he "carefully worded" his statements to stand up in Illinois court, it does not matter! He was not speaking to a court, he was speaking to the common membership who would take his words at face value. Whether you call it a "lie" or not, if he was practicing polygamy in secret, he was deceiving the people, in word and deed. There is no way around that. And frankly, that would be okay. Prophets are fallible. They can lie and still be a prophet. Even the Lord acknowledges that Joseph has committed "trespasses" against Emma in D&C 132:56. But don't try to tell me Joseph was upright and honest in the matter. That I cannot believe. Your stance would be much stronger if you just said that Joseph was a fallible prophet who did not know how to deal with the situation and was dishonest. That is believable. But to try to weasel your way out of any fault on Joseph's part just makes the whole stance suspicious.
When making this kind of a point, you gotta place “the” into the quotation too. "the law”
@@jeepmap1 Haha fair enough. Quotations have been corrected.
She guarded the door while he was with other women !?!? What a load of … Oh but now Hales says Emma was against it and that’s why Joseph was going behind her back!?!?
I think you're missing the point. Emma guarded the door because she sustained her husband. That doesn't need to mean that she was all for it, it just means that she defended the faith when it needed defending. She can feel upset about a practice - and encourage other women not to tolerate it if they can help it - while still saying, "my own situation is what it is, and I can protect it."
@@DannyAGray i cannot accept a response from a man ! You have no idea , none whatsoever, what Emma felt or thought because you are not a woman . You cannot even imagine what how she must of felt « guarding the door « while her husband was having sex with another woman ! And I do not believe any of those stories . The Father that I adore and know would not allow that to happen to His daughters that He loves so much . If this happened , it was a man’s law . I suggest people read the Book of Mormon and that will give you all the answers regarding plural marriage. How convenient Hales says all testimonies showing Joseph was not a polygamist are not true and from amateur historians but all testimonies showing he was are true … really?!?!? Only a man would say that !
@Gordon&Marie Mox it's funny that you use an appeal to authority fallacy to dismiss me as a man, as if I can't have an opinion simply because of my sex. That's rather ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing. What's gonna be your position when you get to heaven and realize you were wrong, that God not only commanded Joseph to do it but also took the time to justify him entirely? Are you gonna curse the Lord? See, the difference between you and I is that if I'm told it didn't happen, my testimony of the gospel doesn't change at all. Cool beans. But if you find it that is all true, you fall because of your pride. Back to the issue of your fallacy, do you honestly think I wouldn't be bothered if my wife were having sex with another man and added religious permission to the act? Of course I'd be upset! No one is saying Emma was entirely cool with the practice. In fact, she encouraged other women to not allow it in their marriage of they could help it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that she was a faithful servant of God who did her part as she saw it. What if you get to heaven and Emma herself tells you she did it and it wasn't a big deal to her? Are you gonna feign your righteous supremacy and indignation at her? Seriously, think before you speak.
@@MaGiMo62Amen!! All it takes is reading D&C 132 to know that polygamy was not of God. People want so badly for Joseph to have been perfect that they are blinded to the realities. He was a man and he was fallible. In the church everything is pushed to be black and white. Ex. Joseph was either all right on everything or all wrong. Most things in life are a balance in the middle.
Hi Gordon and Marie, The quote is from Lucy Walker, a woman who lived with the Smiths in the Mansion House and was sealed to Joseph as a plural wife: “I am also able to testify that Emma Smith, the prophet’s first wife, gave her consent to the marriage of at least four other girls to her husband, and that she was well aware that he associated with them as wives within the meaning of all that word implies. This is proven by the fact that she herself, on several occasions, kept guard at the door to prevent disinterested persons from intruding when these ladies were in the house.” See Historical Record 6 (July 1887): 230.
You should have Michelle Stone from 132 Problems on to discuss with Brian. There is a lot of context he leaves out. The thing that I can’t get past is that not only did Joseph’s wives never have children from him, none of them wrote anything about it at the time. So you’re telling me 40 women married the prophet of the restoration and not one of them, or their family members, mentioned it in a journal entry or letter? That it wasn’t until 30 years later when the church was coincidentally under severe federal pressure and had to prove polygamy originated from Joseph for religious protection, or face the temple being repossessed, that the women happen to say something about it? That’s reeeeeal fishy. The contemporary evidence of Joseph’s polygamy is really really weak. For Brigham, Clayton, Bennett, and other polygamists in Nauvoo there are journal entries, children, marriage documents, and letters that undeniably show their involvement at the time, but for Joseph? Nothing. The only contemporary evidence for Joseph is the William Clayton journals, which are also not as solid as you’d think. We don’t have them, just text excerpts of what people say is written. The church was supposed to release images of the full journals a couple years ago to the public, but it hasn’t happened and is apparently backing out of that promise. And even then, the actual statements in the William journals show Joseph taught polygamy. There’s not much on him practicing it. Again, fishy…
Hi Boston, When you say that "none" of JS's plural wives "wrote anything" about their plural marriages with JS, what are you talking about? Almira Johnson • Desdemona Fullmer • Eliza Partridge • Eliza R. Snow • Elvira A. Cowles • Emily D. Partridge • Lucy Walker • Malissa Lott • Martha McBride • Rhoda Richards • and Sarah Ann Whitney all left affidavits and signed statements that were his wives. I sometimes wonder what we can do with claims that are made with authority but are false. How can we help people not get confused by such spin and propaganda?
Exactly. And for those who always say, "I just don't believe that many men and women would lie." ( decades later when under pressure from government to do so.) I say this, we don't have to doubt that this could happen, because not to long ago when Warren Jeffs went to court, members of his own organization lied for him. Every single women that was a witness, testified that Warren Jeff's did not have sexual relations with a 13 year old, even though they were all fully aware that he had sexually assaulted a 13 year old girl. This issue does not affect my testimony in the church and I think we should respect each other views on this matter. However if Joseph Smith is innocent of this practice which I believe he is then we should do all we can to honestly look at both sides, study it out and take it to the Lord and recieve personal revelation so that it is not just based on our own reason and logic alone. If he is innocent of this practice we should do all we can do to find out so that we don't perpetuate a lie that is preventing many souls from recieving the restoration gospel and causing others to lose their testimony in the restoration.
When the women were cross examined in court, they kept telling contradicting stories and the judge couldn’t believe them. They were all on the losing side of the court case.
@@EdmundPatak Hi Edmund, have you read the actual transcript? I have read all of the remarks many times and you are right that sometimes there are ambiguities or contradictions. But there is also a very clear message from those who talk about nauvoo polygamy and that is that Joseph Smith introduced it and they were participants.
@@brianhales8971 yes I have read it. My favorite part is what the judge all had to say about Brigham’s usurpation. 🙌
28:22 Emma Smith did deny that Joseph ever practiced polygamy. Its in our historical archives as well as in the rlds historical archives. She had a whole interview on the subject and said the he never had any wives but her. Our archives also contain a document made by Emma and the test of the Relief Society called "A Voice of Innocence" stating that polygamy is wrong, and not practiced by them or anyone else in the church.
But this evidence doesn’t suit the biased and agenda driven view of Hales, so it can be dismissed. 🙄
@@Heartsinmelody Right? It's so annoying 😣 He says he considers 2nd and 3rd hand accounts evidence but he ignores all of the rest of that kind of evidence that far outnumbers what he presents. Totally more than proves him biased and agenda driven for sure.
@@peachysparkles 💯- yet his comes off so arrogant because he had a few papers published and much of his work/views made it in the gospel topic essays. However, I expect in time many of these essays will be rewritten, and they official church narrative will change significantly over time.
@@Heartsinmelody Wow I didn't realize his stuff was in those essays. That shows even more that the church has an agenda with this too bc those essays should have been written by real church historians not a hobbyist historian with biased views who would say what they wanted. I agree with you the church will most likely change those essays after a while as they continue to adjust their narrative.
@@peachysparkles he didn’t write them, they were written by “historians”, but they based it off much of his work. The essays are not nearly as authoritative as many members believe, and they may be disappointed over time as the essays are revised.
16:07 It is established that people within the church had conspired together and worked against Joseph before. But I guess after Missouri it became impossible that such a thing could ever happen again.?.
For real man.
Yes, compiled after Joseph was dead and could not defend himself. How very convenient.
He was killed/destroyed. So I think it's interesting that Joseoh said God said in D&C 132, that Emma would be destroyed if she didn't go along with polygamy. But Emma lived and he didn't. 🤔 just makes me wonder, I'm not here to argue with you at all. I just think it's interesting because you said he's not here to defend himself. What if that reason is because he was destroyed for lying to Emma and saying she would be destroyed?
But his best friend Brigham was there to help right. Brigham wanted the church so he got it. Thus we have BYU. and not Joseph Smith U.
You're just gonna remain clueless for the rest of your life, ain't ya.
@@keepinitreal938 That is a possibility. But it just doesn't ring true when you dig a little deeper you find that Joseph and Hyrum both fought against polygamy. In the April 1844 conference Hyrum gave a very big sermon talking against polygamy. This was in the letters the church released a few years ago. One of the people I like to listen to said that it was there but when he went to find it again it was missing so he asked why and they told him that it didn't really fit with the rest of the conference. But then they did leave a bunch of the other talks that had nothing to do with the conference in there. You decide and God be with you.
@@randyjordan5521 You choose to be blind. I can't help you.
So are you saying that everything Joseph said was a lie? Also, how do you reconcile the science that there has never been any posterity of Joseph, other than through Emma? Also, what about all the "big" doctrine that Brigham introduced has been reversed?
Hi Lisa, I have written so much that answers your questions, I can't repeat it here. The answers are there for people who approach the historical record with transparency.
What about the lack of DNA evidence?
@@brianhales8971 lol, “I have all the the answers… now go buy my book.”
I wish I had more time to re-explain these things. I've published lengthy books on such topics. Anyone who wants to understand history will need to make the sacrifice to research it. All of it, not just snippets excised by propagandists.
@@brianhales8971 I have and have read all of your books and was left feeling depressed and discouraged, it wasn’t until the Joseph smith papers showed the doctored journal entry, and the many other documents that make it just so difficult to buy the story. I can’t believe Joseph was a liar, I see the evidence of many others who lied. If a person looks at all the available evidence, even from amateur historians, it just makes the most sense that polygamy came from Brigham and his ilk. It’s crazy that you claim transparency but hide a lot, in my view.
There is a reason the interest is crescendoing. It's called history and learning that the history has been changed and some even hidden - which is now coming to light. It is much easier to find reasons to support your religious position than openly accept actual evidence. Your support of D&C 132 is demonstrative of this.
Amen
@@bobbyshiffler80 nm
I find it hilarious that almost every comment about this rebuttal is saying that the explanations given were insufficient and that the anti-polygamy argument is more convincing.
Brian takes thing out of context all the time and refuses to accept anything that contradicts the churches narrative/authority. If that’s not choosing a conclusion I don’t know what is. Many of us are willing to be wrong, are you Brian?
Are You really????
@@user-tp6hn6im2j yes, are you?
The lost doctrine is the New and Everlasting Covenant. It has nothing to do with Polygamy. Section 132 says it is about marriage and muddied the definition even more. Now we have a whole bunch of us wandering in the dark. And that is why judgement will be such a surprise. When you study it you will wonder why it has never been taught to you.
Spot on.
@teinelaume Are you part of DOC?
The key to every revelation is in the question ... so what was the question. The precedes 132? It was about plural marriage. So to say that it has nothing to do with plural marriage is totally misinterpreting 133
@@jlyman1942 I agree completely too many on both sides of this question disregard or do not understand this fundamental principle.
Really surprised at Brian Hales claims regarding contemporary evidence. Eg. his claim about Joseph's diary regarding reception of a revelation in the presence of Hyrum and Clayton. He must know that this diary was written after Joseph's death. I can't believe he doesn't know this. Therefore I have to ask why he is presenting evidence as contemporary, when it clearly isn't, and he knows it.
Why does Brian say of Sobys letter that "yes it was late 1886" which is a copy by kingsbury...that its "contemporaneous"? Is around 50 years after the fact contemporaneous to Brian? It's like he doesn't hear himself talking. Those who want to be monogamy deniers just hear his browbeating of his fellow amateur historians and how sure he sounds of himself and assume he must be right. Is 1973 contemporaneous with today?
Excellent point!
D&C 132 states upfront (claiming to be the Lord's voice) --verse 1: "Verily, thus sayeth the Lord unto you my servant Joseph" and then says a bit into the sentence, "wherein I, the Lord justified my servants, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines..." The Lord does not lie of course. Isaac was never a polygamist and neither was Abraham. As we know, Isaac married once and Abraham was married to Sarah. Hagar clearly stated, was a concubine which means a female slave. Not a wife. Later he regretted having had a child by her too and drove her and Ishmael out into the desert. Also, in Jacob 2 it clearly states that the Lord did NOT justify David and Solomon having many wives and concubines and said it was abominable to him...the opposite of 132. Between the B of M and 132 I believe the B of M. They cannot both be true. It makes no sense that the Lord would institute anything that hurts and demeans women, which clearly polygamy does. No way could 132 be of God
Here’s a fun account of Joseph, from William Marks, a close friend to Joseph and the Navuoo Stake President: “[Brother Joseph] said that he wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the church, and we retired by ourselves. I will give his words verbatim, for they are indelibly stamped upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time to have a talk with me on the subject of polygamy. He said it eventually would prove the overthrow of the church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United States, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was a cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion made to put it down. He said that he would go before the Congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High Council, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression, and I must sever them from the church, unless they made ample satisfaction.” (Saints' Herald, vol. 1, pp. 22-23) A statement that despite all of Brian’s claimed “transparency,” he will never mention.
@@bbbarham6264He mentions the other statement by Marks that says basically this with a little variation on his website, however he completely misinterprets it and says it says things it's not even saying. Brian Hales isn't a reliable source of anything.
@@bbbarham6264: William Marks was 100% a Mason. He was one of the nine secret combination Mason's!
@@peachysparkles I find it comical how much Brian talks about “transparency,” only to completely change what the text is clearly saying.
Was Section 132 altered by Brigham Young. There seems to have changes on the document (Section 132).
That's a false assertion pushed by Joseph Smith polygamy deniers. Hyrum Smith read the revelation in a meeting of the Nauvoo High Council on August 12, 1843. At least six men in that meeting testified that the document Hyrum read is the same as D&C 132 today. Also, verbiage from the revelation was quoted in multiple publications during Joseph's life, so that demolishes the theory that Brigham altered it too.
@@randyjordan5521Do you have a citation for that? I've heard about that but haven't seen any citations for it. I'd like to see the documents if have any citations pls.
@@peachysparkles "Be it remembered that on the 23rd day of March, in the year 1886, before, Joshua W. Roberts, notary public for the City of Beverly, County of Burlington, State of New Jersey, Leonard Soby, of said city, county and state, was by me duly sworn, and upon his oath saith: That on or about the 12th day of August, 1843, I was a resident of Nauvoo, Hancock County, State of Illinois, and being a member of the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was present at a meeting of said council at the time herein above stated; Thomas Grover, Alpheus Cutler, David Fullmer, William Huntington and others; when Elder Hyrum Smith, after certain explanations, read the revelation on celestial marriage. I have read and examined carefully said revelation, since published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of said Church, and say to the best of my knowledge and belief it is the same, word for word, as the revelation then read by Hyrum Smith. The deponent says further, that the revelation did not originate with Brigham Young, as some persons have falsely stated, but was received by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and read in the High Council by his authority as a revelation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
@@peachysparkles "Forasmuch as the public mind hath been much agitated by a course of procedure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by a number of persons declaring against certain doctrines and practices there- in, (among whom I am one,) it is but meet that I should give my reasons, at least in part, as a cause that hath led me to declare myself. In the lat- ter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a mem- ber, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Proph- et; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revelation in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; 1st. the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding inno- cent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that “Da- vid and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah. This revelation with other evidence, that the afore- said heresies were taught and prac- ticed in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counsellor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws. And further deponent saith not. AUSTIN COWLES."---May 4, 1844.
There is no lds teaching that “no one will be stuck in a relationship they don’t want to be in”
Um yes, yes there is.
@@squiggleverse23 ok citation please? I know I’ll be waiting 😂
@@Heartsinmelody Gerrit W. Gong "The Miracle of Covenant Belonging" Ensign February 2019, 29.
@@lukeslc-xd8ds bro that doesn’t teach what we are talking about. He is referring to married people who, through abuse or incompatibility etc, get divorced on earth and so the covenant is no longer binding - obviously. He is not referring to women who were effectively ‘forced’ into polygamous relationships. He’s not referring to people that remain married their whole life, die, and then just decide, you know what I don’t want this now. He’s not referring to Emma smith, and implying that if JS actually had multiple wives that she has to share them with him, against her will, because the women also want to be with JS. It’s just not a teaching and surprisingly you can only find one passage (that doesn’t teach this anyway) by a junior apostle. Interesting…
@@HeartsinmelodyYou reject truth. An apostle from this century has spoken. No one is forced to do anything, be with anyone.
When will you upload this to your podcast?
Hyrum's 1844 General Conference talk that condemned polygamy was removed from the Joseph Smith papers.
I’m glad Brian brought up October 5th, 1843. It is the single piece of evidence that caused an ‘amateur’ historian like myself to question the official narrative. I believe it’s a reach to say that when George Albert Smith and the other church historians created a new version of the October 5th journal that it was sanctioned by Joseph (who had been dead over 10 years) and that it doesn’t ‘expand’ upon the original, but clearly contradicts it. Keying in on the use of the word ‘law’ does not change the fact that Joseph was clearly preaching against any version of polygamy just 8 months before his murder.
I find that Brian mischaracterizes the 'polygamy deniers' significantly. I have found them to be passionate about viewing all sources, being transparent and practicing sound historical analysis. Several easy to tear down straw men were presented that don't remotely represent how the other side views these issues. Everyone should definitely do their own research and study voices from all sides of the debate when forming an opinion.
There are numerous accounts published during Joseph's lifetime which make it clear that he originated and practiced polygamy.
@@toddmccormick4806 I've dialogued with those people quite a bit over the last few months, and I find them to be the opposite as you assert. I find that they only believe sources which jibe with their beliefs, and they reject all sources which contradict them. As one example, those people believe that Joseph's secretary William Clayton was a scoundrel and liar, and that he fabricated his journal entries wherein he documented Joseph dictating the revelation on celestial marriage to him on July 12, 1843. Those people also believe that Brigham Young fabricated the revelation after Joseph's death---but numerous documents published during Joseph's lifetime repeated verbiage from the revelation, so that completely demolishes their theory. They also believe that Young, most other apostles, William Clayton, etc., were practicing polygamy behind Joseph's back and against his teachings. Some of them believe that Young, John Taylor, and Willard Richards actually plotted the Smiths' deaths because they were polygamous and Joseph and Hyrum weren't. In short, those people are nutty as fruitcakes.
@@randyjordan5521 which do you find most compelling?
@@randyjordan5521 I suppose it's how you characterize how people decide to weigh the evidence. For example, in this video, Hales decides to discount Joseph III's recounting of Emma's denials because he has found reason to be skeptical about Joseph III. He mistrusts his motivations and believes there is evidence that shows Joseph III being inconsistent or deceitful. In a similar fashion, polygamy deniers view the Clayton journals with a high level of skepticism for justifiable (and similar) reasons. All evidence should be scrutinized and personal bias set aside to try and uncover the most accurate picture.
Always down for more Brian, even if he rejected my friend request 😉
I accepted it :-) I honestly don't look at the friend requests that often. Sorry.
Yeah, just slurp up the swill!
Shouldn’t this be as easy as praying to know the “truth of all things”?
Hi there, I have a sincere question for Brian Hales that I'm hoping he might be able to answer. I generally appreciate his work and his ability to discuss difficult subjects calmly. I don't want this to come across contrary; I'm only seeking truth and would like to know his honest answer to this question: If the church had the official position that Joseph didn't practice or teach polygamy, would this affect your research into this subject? Would you view the evidence in the historical record through the same lenses and would you draw the same conclusions you do now?
Hi Elizabeth, I'm a transparencyist so I go where the evidence takes me. Joseph Smith observed that "Truth cuts its own path" and I've found that looking at all the available manuscript data leaves a wide path for faith and belief. It is only when we get our information from highly biased, agenda-driven voices, that faith will suffer.
@Seek Truth I disagree. I have my biases--everyone does. And my 1500-page three-volumes on Joseph Smith's polygamy have been criticized, but no one said that we (me and my research assistant Don Bradley) left anything out. We sought and showed transparency with the data. Of course, as the author, I gave my interpretation, but the data allowed people to disagree if they wanted to. I believe that the JS-was-a-monogamous crowd doesn't care about transparency. By picking and choosing what they present, they create a comfortable fiction that produces confusion in unsuspecting recipients. It is unfortunate and is not serving the cause of truth.
“Manuscript data”? Hmmm
@@brianhales8971 'Joseph Smith observed that "Truth cuts its own path" ' ... while lying to the church and the world about his extra wives. If Joseph did indeed introduce and practice polygamy, lying about it to the end of his life and calling upon God to witness his innocence of it, then no other religious material coming from him can be trusted. Joseph Smith's teachings highly favor truth and honesty, but if he was a secret polygamist and fought so hard against polygamy to the public, as he did, then he is a lying hypocrite and cannot be trusted.
@@brianhales8971 you didn't answer her question. If the church's official narrative was that Joseph defended, preached and practiced monogamy to the end of his days would you walk on the other side of that "wide path" and go with that narrative? or would you, like Michelle and others are doing now, stick your neck out, be an "alternative voice" and continue to defend and advocate Joseph's polygamy as directed by God?
Although I'm a fan of Brian, and I'm currently undecided on the issue of Joseph and polygamy, I find Brian's argument in the first 13 minutes unconvincing. The argument seems to be, "Joseph referenced a 'law' when he stated 'No man shall have but one wife' in his 1843 journal entry. What law is that? The law of eternal marriage! Therefore, Joseph believed in polygamy." But Brian does not appear to connect the law of eternal marriage to polygamy in Joseph's contemporary understanding. In fact, the 1843 journal entry clearly appears to disconnect the 'law' from polygamy, and it requires the addition of some 40 words to connect them.
Do you believe that William Clayton was truthful in his journal entries?
@@PainH8er I assume so, but I can't know. The problem with the polygamy situation is that people were lying about it. It seems like virtually everyone was lying about it. Either to cover it up or to promote it quietly or whatever. It's hard to find the historical truth when the people involved were lying/hiding it regularly.
There are numerous sources of evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy outside of that one statement. I'll give you three: The satirical poem "Buckeye's Lamentation For Want Of More Wives" which was published in February 1844. The "Nauvoo Expositor", published June 7, 1844. Joseph H. Jackson's narrative of his association with Joseph Smith which was published in June 1844. All three documents are on the internet. I suggest you read them.
@@talkofchrist agreed. I just don’t see a reason for William Clayton to lie about it in his journal. He gives a near perfect description of section 132, states that the revelation was from Joseph, and states that it was about polygamy.
@@PainH8er I can't remember, was that journal entry in this video? At what minute? And if not, can you link to it in the JS papers? Sorry for being a dummy in regard to that entry.
JS couldn’t translate one syllable of the BOM while he was put out about some argument with Emma, yet he was able to receive revelations while fornicating behind Emma’s back?
Plural sealings for time and eternity performed by proper authority (restored April 3, 1836) were genuine marriages in God's eyes. Intimacy thereafter was not fornication. But you knew that didn't you. BTW, where did all the words of the Book of Mormon come from? That question is the focus of my current research.
Solid point, Kopaka2001. And the point still stands if you change “fornicating” to “engaging in sexual relations with a different woman who God said was also is wife.”
Excellent point!!!!!!
@@brianhales8971 I see it as fornicating since I do not believe in God sanctioned polygamy. Regardless, according to you, he was engaging in activity behind Emma’s back that she definitely wouldn’t have approved of. The standard was set. In order to receive revelation/be God’s instrument, he had to have harmony in his household. And just to be clear, I believe JS was a true prophet of God, that his name has been besmirched in order to cover for the sins of people who came after, yet through it all, the keys stayed with the church and are hold by Pres Nelson today.
@@brianhales8971 should we all feel sorry for your wife?
I’m concerned with this argument. What about the many public addresses by Joseph himself that flat out denied polygamy? These are reliable resources because it comes from Joseph himself. Where are the biological children from all these other wives? Given how often Joseph was in hiding from the mob, and the time spent away from Emma, reducing opportunity for him to have sex with his wife and the many children they had (pregnancies), it shows his virility. There would be at least one other women that had a child with him, given the accounts that he had between 30 or 40 wives (doesn’t seem like there is many reliable resources on the number of wives. ) there would be at least one child somewhere. I am surprised by the dismal of evidence using DNA. There was extensive research to find a descendant of Joseph and none were found outside the offspring from him and Emma Let’s address the language used in section 132 toward Emma. It sounds nothing like any interaction recorded between Joseph and his wife. However, it is very well known how Brigham Young felt about Emma and it sounds like him. Brigham on several documented speeches accused Emma of trying to kill her husband and in one incident inferred her involvement with the mob in his death. This is disturbing, and yet goes unmentioned. For anyone reading this, you can look up Brigham young’s speech on June 1855 in a SLC council meeting. There are so many more like it, including General conference addresses. I can’t think of any intelligent husband that would decide to chastise his wife in something so public and Permanant as scripture, he was smarter than that. As for the origin of section 132, It is strange that he would have this said “revelation”in his desk drawer that conveniently appeared 8 years after Joseph was martyred. The removal of section 101 on marriage that taught monogamy as being Gods law of marriage, that WAS canonized by Joseph was conveniently replaced with scripture that was not. This is evidence that is suspicious in and of itself. I do not believe Joseph was lying to the church (many public addresses vehemently denying polygamy), or that it would be okay to be secretly having sex with other women behind his wife’s back (which is adultery no matter how you try to paint it). This does not sound like a man of God, let alone the prophet of the restoration. It is strange how apologist throw Jospeh under the bus, despite what his wife, mother and his brother Hyrum have said (these three bring his closest confidants), let alone what he himself has said publicly . I have listened to Michelle Stones recent podcast with Jeremy Hoops, I found it very evidence filled and without this condescending tone in this presentation. I do not believe God restored his church through a man that is a lier and adulterer. You keep referring to amateur historians, and yet Jeremy’s evidence makes the most sense. You are right, we DO need transparency, not hearsay. If you do not believe that women living under the oppressive polygamist life style will do anything to keep themselves and their children safe, you have not been paying attention and haven’t listened to some of the organizations that are helping people escape the life style. They describe the mental control these men have on women and young girls. Polygamy is disgusting, there is no way that God would love his daughters less than his sons. There is no way God would say, “let’s give men more women to have sex with, that will help them build the kingdom and honor women and marriage.” I believe it was Orson Pratt’s explanation in1852, with Brigham Young presiding, went so far as to say polygamy would help keep men from visiting prostitutes because they have extra women to satiate their sexual desires . Not sure why this evil narrative is being defended but hopefully the truth will come forward. If polygamy was of God, he would have instructed Adam to have more than one wife when he said to “multiply and replenish the earth.” Jesus Christ would have taught it. The Book or Mormon would have taught it. The one verse in Jacob that has obviously been taken out of context is the only thing in the Book of Mormon that supposedly supports it. God etched it on stone that we are not to commit adultery. Not sure why, telling the truth and clearing Joseph’s reputation as a man of God is so debatable. Sorry this was so long.
I wish I could give this 50 likes-you’ve summed the whole thing up, Lori! Awesome!
Thanks. I am trying to stay, but this narrative that is being pushed makes it hard.
@@lorihansen5441 I’m so sorry. I love the church too and think it would be amazing if we all together decided to just follow Christ and align ourselves to His doctrine instead of saying we can follow a man and never be led astray. If that means walking back some teachings we used to be very confident about, who cares. Better to be right with God than always right. I believe we have entered the time prophesied in Isaiah (28:17) when “the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.” Your words read like they are part of that hail, and the living water of Christ’s true gospel is starting to overflow the historical security where polygamy has safely hidden for the last 3 generations.
There doesn’t seem like there are many that are staying, it seems like such a lonely place when your are trying to hold. The difficulty comes with recognizing that we are holding on to some pretty unGodly beliefs and still trying to see past it and hold on to the things that I can believe. This narrative holds to the belief that Joseph was a lying cheat and that God commanded it. There is so much that is wrong with that thinking. As for Brigham Young… sheeesh, I can’t even put into words the disgust in his teachings such as Adam God, blood atonement , his view of sons and daughters of God. The amount of wealth he seemed to accumulate personally when his employment he had, didn’t seem to match the sum he died with. Building his wealth when members were literally starving to death. I can’t figure out how this man can be seen as the mouth piece for God, but the church still recognizes him as such.
Please excuse the grammatical errors
40 wives and we can’t identify any decedents? That is just weird. Is he the only polygamist that has no known decedents from his plural wives? Since the purpose of polygamy was to raise up seed, he was a failure as a polygamist, or he wasn’t practicing. I can’t think of another conclusion. Prophet Eve so.
What makes you think he was trying to procreate? Many of his first wives were already married and got pregnant from their legal husbands instead.
@@danvogel6802The teaching of polygamy in section 132 is that it's for the purpose of procreating. So if God commanded him to do, it he should have been procreating.
@@peachysparkles The command to multiply pertains to all marriages, not just polygamous ones. Unless you are a fundamentalist or literalist, a married couple might choose to delay having offspring for various reasons.
Brian Hales. I appreciate you taking the time to come on the show and explain your position. I’m less convinced of your side now that I’ve listened to your reasoning. You seem to be totally ok with the journal entry of Joseph Smith being doctored to favor the practice of polygamy. You saying that the person doing the revisions was only doing it in good faith. This doesn’t pass the smell test in my opinion. It was doctored under the direction of Brigham Young to make it seem like the immoral practice of polygamy was of God. They needed to make it seem like JS was a polygamous so they could justify doing it themselves.
🎯
Hi, I don't know how the "smell test" might interact with a transparent approach to the evidence. Personally, I would encourage scholarship above smelling. :-) The evidence supporting JS's involvement with the introduction and practice of plural marriage involves hundreds of pages of documents. If someone wishes to disbelieve it, that is their business. I just hope they don't ignore it. Selective "studying it out in your mind" (D&C 9:89) won't bring truth.
I believe the Bible. Abraham had wives and concubines. He was a Prophet of God. I believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God too.
Bro. Hales, I have no interest in this debate. I’m old and have always been taught that Joseph had a great many wives, so I just think that’s how it was. What happens to plural wives in the hereafter remains to be seen, as with all monogamous marriages too, according to individual righteousness and the desires of the heart. I have a couple questions I’ve never been able to find answers to. Could you let me know if you know the answers please? Moroni appeared to Joseph multiple times. Elijah appeared. Peter, James and John. Their names were given to Joseph and their visitations were recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. The angel who appeared to Joseph commanding polygamy breaks this established pattern-his name is not known and his visitations have never been canonized. Section 132 is from Jesus Christ. Why is there no known record kept of the angel with the drawn sword? Was it Jacob? Moses? David? Also, you mentioned how William Clayton kept a very good journal. Clayton recorded a walk he and Joseph took one evening about 6 weeks or so before the martyrdom during which Joseph told Bro Clayton that he feared polygamy was going to be the ruin of the church and point blank said, “I have been deceived.” Why is this never acknowledged or considered a crucial moment in the early church? Was Joseph thinking about how he began such marriages years before he even received the keys from Elijah? Was he maybe thinking how he didn’t do the test of shaking hands with the sword-drawn angel-which test is essential because an evil spirit can appear as an angel of light and deceive even even the very elect?-such as himself? “I have been deceived,” is pretty bold and direct. It’s not “maybe” or “perhaps” or “I wonder if I have been deceived.” No, in a very vulnerable, intimate moment with a trusted friend he proclaimed what sounds like a man realizing something very profoundly true. Yet, no one ever even talks about this entry from Bro. Clayton’s journal. From your immense research, can you address why the angel isn’t named, his visitations aren’t canonized, and Joseph’s statement to Bro. Clayton has been ignored? I appreciate your help.
Joseph saying he was deceived is explained in detail on the channel IBelieveJoseph in a video about Brother Marks.
@@peachysparkles thank you for sharing.-that a very interesting video of Bro. Marks. The account I know of is where Joseph told William Clayton he had been deceived about polygamy and should not have started it. I’ve studied this for 45 years and there is too much evidence of Joseph’s many secret marriages to other women to deny he practiced it. After all, he wrote in his own hand that an angel with a sword came to him commanding him to do it or he would be destroyed. I took his telling Clayton he had been deceived meant that the so-called angel with a sword was not a good angel sent by God. There’s no record of a name for the angel like Moroni’s appearance. And there’s no record of Joseph testing the angel to see if he was an angel of light or darkness. Joseph said evil spirits can appear as angels of light and deceive even the most righteous. I believe he was speaking from experience when he said this. But there are letters Joseph wrote in exile to a new wife that wasn’t Emma. He tells her to not let Emma know he asks for her, and how to sneak to him “to comfort me” without Emma finding out. We know what comfort me means, especially because he didn’t want Emma to visit him. He was young. He was an anointed leader. Most people in such positions actually have many wives and concubines because the prestige and power gets to them. I don’t think Joseph meant harm. But I think by the time he got to 1844 he realized the disaster polygamy was causing and thus admitted to Bro. Clayton that he had been deceived. But by then, the brethren practicing it loved it. Young wives as they aged-Brigham said it kept him young and full of vigor compared to the doting old monogamous men. The diaries of the wives I’ve read, though, are all very sad-poverty, hardship, loneliness, depression, and loveless. But then, they taught over the pulpit that romantic love was a tool of the devil and wasn’t real or to be sought. Strange times, but normal to them. I’m grateful I wasn’t born in those wretched days. I would not have survived. But I freely admit that if I get to the other side and find out that Joseph never practiced plural marriage after all, I’ll be pleased. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I will keep an open mind. Thanks again.
@@ggrace1133 I have never seen an account of Joseph telling Clayton he was decieved. The only accounts I've seen featuring that kind of quote are the ones involving Bro. Marks. I have seen all the "evidence" myself of people who claim they were taught plural marriage by Joseph and the women who claim he married them. But I find all of these accounts to be incredibly suspicious for many reasons and I also find it very suspicious that LDS apologists always try to discredit all of the evidence saying Joseph is innocent with complaints that can be said of the accounts they favor saying he's guilty (the main one being that many of these claims were written "late." That hypocrisy is a red flag to me. It's ok for the stuff saying he's guilty to be written late but not the stuff saying he's innocent?) Church leaders and apologists also hide over 1,000 testimonies in the church history archives saying Joseph is innocent and a whole slew of other stories explaining how he is innocent. That to me, is another red flag. The fact that church leaders and historians hide SO MUCH of this whole story and only tell us the tiny polygamist picked and curated parts of it shows that we are being manipulated into believing a certain narrative rather than being allowed to make a decision for ourselves. Most people believe Joseph is guilty because they have seen all the "evidence" saying he is. But those people have usually never seen all of the multitudinous evidences saying he's not. When all you see is the one side of the story, yeah it looks bad-I know because at one point that was all I'd seen too-and it seems like he was definitely a polygamist. But when you understand the people who crafted and who have continued to craft and push that narrative and learn the whole other side of the story everything flips on its head and suddenly there's no way Joseph Smith could have ever been a polygamist. When church leaders have to hide and manipulate so much information for nearly 200 years in order to control what the members believe about Joseph Smith, something is WRONG and the real truth is not being presented. No one needs to manipulate a story they have full confidence in.
Can you get some expertise on the subject of Joseph Smith's Jupiter Talisman?
A Jupiter talisman was apparently in Joseph Smith’s possession at the time of his death. A talisman is defined as “a stone, ring, or other object engraven with figures or characters, to which are attributed the occult powers of the planetary influences and celestial configurations under which it was made; usually worn as an amulet to avert evil from and bring fortune to the wearer.” In this case, the talisman was a silver piece about the size of a silver dollar with inscriptions on each side associated with the planet Jupiter. Latter-day Saints were first introduced to reports that Joseph Smith owned a talisman in 1902 when Apostle John Henry Smith visited Nauvoo. On September 6, he spoke with Charles E. Bidamon, Emma Hale Smith Bidamon’s step-son. John Henry recorded: “Mr. Chas. E. Bidamon showed us a medal said to have been carved by Joseph Smith with this inscription on it Confirms O Dius Potentessemus.” In 1937, Bidamon signed an affidavit with this description: “A silver piece bearing the inscription ‘Confirms [six] O Deus Potentissimus’ and numerous hieroglyphical inscriptions. This piece came to me through the relationship of my father Mjor L. C. Bidamon who married the Prophet Joseph Smiths widow, Emma Smith. I certify that I have many times heard her say when being interviewed, and showing this piece, that it was in the Prophets pocket when he was martyred at Carthage Ill . . . She prized this piece very highly on account of its being one of the Prophets intimate possessions.” Bidamon wrote that Emma frequently mentioned the talisman to others, but his report is the only reference available. Many of Emma’s interviews and conversations were documented, but none refer to Joseph Smith making or owning a talisman. The idea that Joseph valued a Jupiter talisman is puzzling because he was born under the sign of Capricorn (December 23, 1805). It is probable that Bidamon was mistaken or fabricating its provenance. It is also curious that one of Joseph’s “intimate possessions” ended up in the hands a stranger after his death. Researchers might theorize that Emma kept it and Bidamon found it among her effects after her passing. But in light of its alleged importance to the Prophet, it seems a close relative, even one of his sons, would have been aware of its existence and sought ownership at some point, as occurred when Joseph Smith III obtained his father’s watch. The treatment of this object by Joseph’s family has implications for understanding whether he discussed this object with those to whom he was closest. Bidamon’s disposition of the object suggests that none of Joseph’s sons sought ownership of it, as occurred when Joseph Smith III obtained his father’s watch. If the object was an important possession of their father’s, they apparently did not know it, implying that neither Joseph nor Emma communicated to their children that the object had significance.
Dan Vogel just posted a very informative video on that subject. If you want to know a lot more, I suggest you read Michael Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View."
@@randyjordan5521 epic. thank you!
@@randyjordan5521 Do you believe Quinn's version? He did great research, but makes so many assumptions in his reconstructions, assumptions that are almost always negative to Joseph Smith, that I would urge caution, especially with his Jupiter Talisman material.
@@brianhales8971 I haven't read Quinn's book in probably 20 years. It's in my attic, and I don't really have the time to get deep into the subject at present. That's why I suggested that the OP watch Vogel's video. Vogel disagrees with some of Quinn's findings. But as a general statement re: Joseph Smith's engagement in folk-magic, his mother's comments in her memoir about drawing magic circles etc. make the Smiths' involvement in the practice an established fact. Especially when we combine that with all of the accounts from Joseph's fellow money-diggers and the evidence of his March 1826 court trial.
Joseph Smith was a super rock star in Nauvoo. He could have slept around all he wanted. Anyone that thinks he found polygamy attractive doesn't understand how men think. Who wants to have additional bosses in the house? Wife 1 to Husband: "Did you take out the trash?" Wife 2 to Wife 1: "NO HE DID NOT!!!" Wife 3 to Wives 1 & 2: "I told him to fix the fence last week and he has not gotten to that either!!!" NO THANK YOU!!!
“No man would have more than one wife or they will join together and beat him. If I was a woman, and got so fooled I would hide my head. I give the sisters leave to wring his nose to teach such stuff; I’ll bear you out in it; give him justice.” -Hyrum Smith, April 8, 1844 I LOL’d at this. 😂
"Passepartout could not behold without a certain fright these women, charged, in groups, with conferring happiness on a single Mormon. His common sense pitied, above all, the husband. It seemed to him a terrible thing to have to guide so many wives at once across the vicissitudes of life, and to conduct them, as it were, in a body to the Mormon paradise with the prospect of seeing them in the company of the glorious Smith, who doubtless was the chief ornament of that delightful place, to all eternity. He felt decidedly repelled from such a vocation, and he imagined-perhaps he was mistaken-that the fair ones of Salt Lake City cast rather alarming glances on his person. Happily, his stay there was but brief. At four the party found themselves again at the station, took their places in the train, and the whistle sounded for starting. Just at the moment, however, that the locomotive wheels began to move, cries of “Stop! stop!” were heard. Trains, like time and tide, stop for no one. The gentleman who uttered the cries was evidently a belated Mormon. He was breathless with running. Happily for him, the station had neither gates nor barriers. He rushed along the track, jumped on the rear platform of the train, and fell, exhausted, into one of the seats. Passepartout, who had been anxiously watching this amateur gymnast, approached him with lively interest, and learned that he had taken flight after an unpleasant domestic scene. When the Mormon had recovered his breath, Passepartout ventured to ask him politely how many wives he had; for, from the manner in which he had decamped, it might be thought that he had twenty at least. “One, sir,” replied the Mormon, raising his arms heavenward -“one, and that was enough!”"
"All the proclamations Joseph Smith could issue denouncing polygamy and repudiating it as utterly anti-Mormon were of no avail; the people of the neighborhood, on both sides of the Mississippi, claimed that polygamy was practiced by the Mormons, and not only polygamy but a little of everything that was bad. Brigham returned from a mission to England, where he had established a Mormon newspaper, and he brought back with him several hundred converts to his preaching. His influence among the brethren augmented with every move he made. Finally Nauvoo was invaded by the Missouri and Illinois Gentiles, and Joseph Smith killed. A Mormon named Rigdon assumed the Presidency of the Mormon church and government, in Smith's place, and even tried his hand at a prophecy or two. But a greater than he was at hand. Brigham seized the advantage of the hour and without other authority than superior brain and nerve and will, hurled Rigdon from his high place and occupied it himself. He did more. He launched an elaborate curse at Rigdon and his disciples; and he pronounced Rigdon's "prophecies" emanations from the devil, and ended by "handing the false prophet over to the buffetings of Satan for a thousand years"-probably the longest term ever inflicted in Illinois. One of the last things which Brigham Young had done before leaving Iowa, was to appear in the pulpit dressed to personate the worshipped and lamented prophet Smith, and confer the prophetic succession, with all its dignities, emoluments and authorities, upon "President Brigham Young!" The people accepted the pious fraud with the maddest enthusiasm, and Brigham's power was sealed and secured for all time. Within five years afterward he openly added polygamy to the tenets of the church by authority of a "revelation" which he pretended had been received nine years before by Joseph Smith, albeit Joseph is amply on record as denouncing polygamy to the day of his death. Now was Brigham become a second Andrew Johnson in the small beginning and steady progress of his official grandeur. He had served successively as a disciple in the ranks; home missionary; foreign missionary; editor and publisher; Apostle; President of the Board of Apostles; President of all Mormondom, civil and ecclesiastical; successor to the great Joseph by the will of heaven; "prophet," "seer," "revelator." There was but one dignity higher which he could aspire to, and he reached out modestly and took that-he proclaimed himself a God! Up to the date of our visit to Utah, such had been the Territorial record. The Territorial government established there had been a hopeless failure, and Brigham Young was the only real power in the land. He was an absolute monarch-a monarch who defied our President-a monarch who laughed at our armies when they camped about his capital-a monarch who received without emotion the news that the august Congress of the United States had enacted a solemn law against polygamy, and then went forth calmly and married twenty-five or thirty more wives."
@@Maryel_R_R_PalmerI guess we have to ring Pres. Nelson’s nose 🤷🏻♀️
@@aubreegittins9271 He didn't have two wives at the same time in this life.
Why have the foremost polygamy apologist on to explain so-called "polygamy deniers"? Why not invite some of those who have studied and come to the conclusion that Joseph was innocent of those charges?
One of the most beautiful aspects of our mortal probation is that *all* of us--trained historians, amateur historians, women who are "just" mothers, men who are "just" farm boys--all of us have an equal and inalienable right to call upon our Creator for truth. This applies to polygamy. I don't have to rely of what historians tell me that the current Church narrative tells me that I should believe about polygamy. I can and did look into my heart and attempted to discern what polygamy and all of its fruits told me about its author. I searched the scriptures to see if there was a narrative that explains polygamy better than the one we've been handed. I placed my faith in what God says (through words and works) about my true identity as a daughter of God. Coming to see that woman's true identity has *never* included polygamy and concubinage has enlightened my understanding and become delicious to me. I assume the church continues to double-down on Joseph as polygamy-restorer is because we think we lose our authority if he in fact didn't (which perhaps is why we keep the Clayton diaries locked up, because they don't prove his polygamy so much as historical manipulation). But the Book of Mormon demonstrates that isn't the case--Alma in King Noah's court repented of his whoredoms with many wives and concubines and formed a church. Yes former leaders taught it as doctrine. They taught a lot of things that we now "disavow." We don't have to hold onto "the doctrine of many wives and concubines" any more than we do the false teachings about blacks and the priesthood. If Joseph was a polygamist, that's very unfortunate for him, because polygamy does not come from God any more than slavery does. Speaking as a "polygamy denier" (just a more specific way of saying "sin denier," thanks!), I started looking at Joseph more closely when the DNA analysis "polygamy lovers" commissioned showed that he didn't produce any children with the women who alleged to have born his children. I disagree with Brian's interpretation of this fact. I believe, in their desperation to ensure everyone believed polygamy came from Joseph, polygamy lovers overshot--they didn't foresee DNA and felt safe to claim that Joseph was married to dozens of women. That would mean that a demonstrably virile man married/had sexual intercouse with up to 40 women during their peak fertility--not a problem because women claimed they had his children. But for DNA to show that Joseph did not produce children with any of these 30-40 marital partners--other than Emma--in a time before modern birth control, that's a feat unheard of in human history, a true modern miracle! Perhaps there was another explanation, I thought. This untrained, amateur nobody has learned for herself that historians aren't the ones to give us ultimate light and knowledge on this issue. God is. And God gives liberally.
I am willing to agree that your conception of polygamy or the degree to which you comprehend it would never be commanded by God. But how can you know that you comprehend this practice completely? What about the many valiant pioneer women who detested the idea as much as you do, but later testified of marvelous revelations that convinced them it was of God? Have you read all of these accounts? Do you really think you are more spiritually enlightened or more righteous than they? Did you even listen to this entire video?
@@rockartalan Totally fair questions. I did watch the entire video which is why I was able to say that I don’t find Brian’s interpretation of the history compelling from a theological perspective. I don’t think I’m more righteous or spiritual than anyone. I was desperate to know who I was/am, who I can/ will be, because if polygamy is in the future of covenant-keeping women I need to know that, that informs whether I will choose to be a covenant-keeping woman. I know that if you grab any random woman in the FLDS today and have her record her testimony of polygamy, you will get the same fervency with which my foremothers testified. Their testimonies are not sufficient evidence of truth. You ask how I can know truth. Alma’s parable of the seed of faith is how we can all know truth. That is how we can know that polygamy is not of God.
@@gwendolynwyne Joseph was 20 i think when he married and Emma 22 and at that age it took 5 years to produce a DNA line. The Expositor claims Joseph's conquests were sent away quickly after their time with him. So if it took 5 years of constant effort with Emma why should we expect 5 hours to 5 days to be sufficient with others? .
@@whatsup3270 Because the sheer number of highly fertile sexual partners in a time before modern birth control makes no posterity almost a statistical impossibility. I get that people can still believe he was a polygamist-lots of people said he was. But he said he wasn’t. And his wife said he wasn’t (publicly, before she was dead). And his co-president of the church brother believed he wasn’t. The doctrine Joseph Smith taught-publicly taught and published-is beautiful. It’s full of light. But polygamy is dark. And those that eventually taught polygamy and concubinage publicly also admitted to publicly lying about it when it served what they believed were God’s purposes.
@@gwendolynwyne If Joseph was so highly fertile why did it take 6 years to produce a living child?
No new data to come from polygamy? What about the William Clayton Diaries? Hummm….
Yeah I don't believe that Joseph Smith ever practiced Polygamy. At least in the way we currently think. I don't think that Joseph was lying when he said that he never practiced it, and I don't think that Emma was lying when she denied it. Does this change my testimony of the church, not at all. It just means Brigham was wrong in his interpretation of Joseph's revelations. This seems likely to me, because it seems they were debating for quite a while after Joseph's death before they finally released D&C132. And because the women who claim to have been married to Joseph came forward years after his death with their stories. There is an obvious social clout associated with being "married" to The Prophet of the restoration. Which is why many women were sealed to Joseph, choosing to do so, even after his death they continued to be sealed to him.
I totally agree with you! I love the way you explained it. It is so much like what happened with blacks and the priesthood. The polygamy Manifesto was a correction not a new revelation!
@@lindseyloveslearning It is an interesting topic for sure. I don't think that it is accurate to claim that the history is at all settled, because it is a very complex topic, historically and doctrinally. As I've learned more about how revelation works in my personal life, it is very easy to see how the revelations could have just been partially misunderstood. Revelation isn't easy, and even though you can get a lot of things right, you can still be wrong about other things.
Sad
If Brigham was wrong wouldn't many other prophets after him have it wrong and as time goes by the whole church is totally different from what it started out to be how do we know if they didn't get other things wrong over time as well
@ATD1990 how I like to look at it is that we as Saints are still wandering in the wilderness so to speak. We were kicked out of Zion and now we are wandering around until we can figure out the gospel and how to live it the way the Savior wants us to. We have living Prophets who are doing their best and a loving Heavenly Father who is always trying to get us back on track and give us more knowledge. The problem is we can only receive knowledge as we are ready for it. We know that prophets are not infallible, and specifically Brigham Young taught many things that we no longer count as Doctrine and were never taught again after him. Prophets throughout history made mistakes, it should not make us lose our testimony, but it should make us rely even more on our Savior Jesus Christ. We should try to live the gospel even better than we have in the past so that we can be ready for more light and Truth.
“No man shall have but one wife” Brian, you know full well there are many other documents that show Jospeh taught monogamy and condemned polygamy.
in that same chapter it says that there are exceptions
I find it ironic that all the thing’s Brian accuses the polygamy-deniers of doing to come to the conclusion that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist, he also does to come to the conclusion that he was. The primary difference is that Brian ignores Joseph’s own words and testimony and the deniers ignore individual’s who were trying to defame and destroy Joseph.
The best source for getting answers to the issues surrounding polygamy, or anything else, is to ask God to get your answers to the information that is out there. We should care more about what God thinks more than what man claims on whether or not it was commanded by God.
Amen
What is the point of any of the saints unscripted or brian hales work if all we need to do is pray?
Your feelings, aka asking God, is demonstrably the worst way of getting to the truth of the matter. Study and knowledge should guide your feelings, not the other way around! Relying on feelings and rejecting study is just another false teaching of a church that has resorted to lying to its members and the public for two centuries.
@@notnow659 polygamy wasn’t a commandment of God.! Believe it or not I have studied this topic out In my mind & personal knowledge that I e learned through studying on the topic for quite a while now, and know that Polygamy is an abomination to the lord! I took my understanding of this topic after a lot of research & prayer & the answer that I got was that it wasn’t the lords will for Brigham Young, several others, and also anciently was forbidden. Even the Book of Mormon condemns it. I believe that Brigham was a fallen prophet!
@@dankrause5665 I don't disagree with your view of polygamy. As for Mormon scripture, I look at the D&C and see a ridiculously hot mess that basically addresses Joseph Smith's immediate needs, not the will of God. As for Brigham Young, the guy has had his revelations and proclamations cancelled by his own church! Much of it is considered heresy. Mormons just refuse to admit what the rest of us already know. Mormons are not now and have never been led by a prophet. My principle difference with you is the idea that the way to discover truth is to pray about it. No, it's not! Men knew this thousands of years ago, and explicitly warned against it in the bible no less! It's a false teaching of the LDS church that they resort to because so many of their truth claims have proven false and they don't want members to actually know the truth. I find it ironic that a church which preaches that salvation only comes from grace AFTER ALL YOU CAN DO, thinks that one can find truth just by praying about it, and should avoid study, i.e., "all you can do.". Mormon leaders are famous for talking out both sides of their mouths.
I don't think so at all.
Why does Joseph's practice of polygamy cause so much problem with members if they are accepting of Brigham's?
Because of D&C 101 in 1835
@@whatsup3270 Not following you. What part of that section applies to this issue?
@@vendingdudes many are trying to split the Church into two. The original was Church of Christ anti polygamy (D&C 101) . And a different Church Latter Day Saints polygamists under Brigham. (D&C 132)
@@vendingdudes The D&C while Joseph was alive had a section 101 in it that condemned polygamy. That section was removed by Brigham for section 132 which teaches the opposite.
@@bbbarham6264 Can you point me to historical documents showing Brigham removing section 101? I can not find historical evidence to support your claim that Brigham Young removed Section 101 from the Doctrine and Covenants. Section 101 has remained intact since its inclusion in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. BTW we all know that Joseph condemned men taking on polygamy. The Book of Mormon condemned men taking on polygamy.
Brian - I know you mention the RLDS taught that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy, but was this ever officially taught by the Brigham Young branch (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)? I served a mission for the LDS church in 2000 and was told by very educated Mission President that Joseph never practiced polygamy. (Apologies if this is brought up further in the video, I’m only a few minutes in right now) 2:46
Yes, it was. There are several places in our LDS church history archives where Brigham Young and many other church leaders and members, including the entire Relief Society, stated that Joseph was not teaching or practicing plural marriage. Many of the women who said he married them also gave testimonies to the contrary while Joseph was alive. Joseph actually fought very hard to keep it out of the church for several years and our archives show as much. I have citations if you want to see them.
Very informative! Thank you!
Regarding the diary entry, the law is: “No man shall have but one wife.” That’s pretty easy to see if you just read it together. “On this law, Joseph forbids it, and the practice thereof - No man shall have but one wife.” Brian presented periods in that sentence, but if you look at the actual journal page they look like commas.
The rationale Hales gives here about interpolations to Section 132 is utter tripe.
Why... every time this video says... "historical documents"... does my brain instantly go to Galaxy Quest :)
No, there is no replacement Beryllium Sphere on board.
"What is this thing? I mean, it serves no useful purpose for there to be a bunch of chompy, crushy things in the middle of a hallway"
Funny
Sounds like you need to learn the difference between reality and fantasy.
"Look around you. Can you form some kind of rudimentary lathe?"
Yikes, this just brings up many more unanswered questions. He said Emma had to guard the door while he spent time with his other wives? And he began practicing it before her knowledge? I am dumbfounded😢.
Here’s the thing, there are a LOT of affidavits saying that Joseph was a polygamist, however, they are all given decades after his death, the details contradict each other or don’t match up to contemporary records, and for many of them church property was under threat or repossession if they couldn’t prove polygamy originated from Joseph. So…. makes you wonder…
@@bbbarham6264 There’s too much data from too many parties from Joseph’s inner circle and antagonists that confirm Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and D&C 132 was read to the Nauvoo Council. There are affidavits made by William Law, Jane Law, and Austin Cowles that describe and corroborate key details of D&C 132 on May 4, 1844, published in the Nauvoo Expositor on June 7, 1844. Among the things about D&C 132 verified, William Law recalled it said “this is the law” and to “enter into my law.” matching D&C 132:32-34. Jane Law recalled that it authorized some men to have up to “the number of ten” wives, and that women who did not allow their husbands to have more than one wife would “be under transgression before God” matching D&C 132:61-65. Austin Cowles recalled that the revelation Hyrum Smith read to the High Council taught sealing up to Eternal Life against all sins except the shedding of innocent blood (D&C 132:26) and that David and Solomon had many wives yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah (D&C 132:38-39). 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 polgamy in former days and/or in the afterlife. These minutes were published in the Nauvoo Neighbor on June 19, 1844. William Clayton recorded in his journal that he wrote the original revelation on July 12, 1843 as it was dictated to him by the Prophet: “This A.M, I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives and concubines &c. After it was wrote Presidents Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to E[mma] who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious” Which Joseph Smith’s journal also says “Wednesday July 12 [1843] Receivd a Revelation in the office in presence of Hyrum & Wm. Clayton.” (Joseph Smith Papers: Journals Volume 3, May 1843-June 1844 page 57) Then one or two days later, Newell K. Whitney requested permission to have a copy made. Joseph C. Kingsbury described the copying process in 1886: ”Bishop Newel K. Whitney handed me the Revelation… the day [after] it was written or the day following and stating what it was asked me to make a copy of it. I did so, and then read my copy of it to Bishop Whitney, who compared it with the original to which he held in his hand while I read to him. When I had finished reading, Bishop Whitney pronounced the copy correct and Hyrum Smith came into the room at the time to fetch the original. Bishop Whitney handed it to him. I will also state that this copy, as also the original are identically the same as published in the present edition [1876] of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.” Clayton later affirmed that the Kingsbury manuscript was an exact copy: “Towards evening Bishop Newel K. Whitney asked Joseph if he had any objections to his taking a copy of the revelation; Joseph replied that be had not, and handed it to him. It was carefully copied the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury . . . The copy made by Joseph C. Kingsbury is a true and correct copy of the original in every respect. The copy was carefully preserved by Bishop Whitney.” (Andrew Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record 6 (July 1887): 226.) Even people who were in the RLDS, whose claim of being the true Church was dependent on whether Joseph practiced polygamy or not, even admitted it was practiced. In a meeting of the RLDS First Presidency on May 1, 1865 “The Question arose as to whether Joseph the Martyr taught the Doctrine of polygamy. President [William] Marks said Brother Hyrum came to his place once and told him he did not believe in it and he was going to see Joseph about it and if he had a revelation on the subject he would believe it, and after that Hyrum read a revelation on it in the High Council and He Marks felt it was not true but he saw the High Council received it.” (RLDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve meeting, 1 May 1865, RLDS Archives) In 1883, RLDS apostle Zenos Gurley Jr. interviewed Leonard Soby, who confirmed that the Utah affidavits were truthful and also signed an affidavit confirming that D&C 132 was the same revelation that he heard Hyrum Smith read. Zenos Gurley Jr. resigned his apostleship in the RLDS Church in response to Soby’s testimony. Let’s also not forget that all of the women have said they were sealed to Joseph Smith, which you can read about in Brian Hale’s books. You can even see the deeds of the property he gave to some of his wives on the Joseph Smith Papers. The data is overwhelming and to deny it is to deny reality.
Well you could ask God.
The Churches position on Poligamy is based on Amateur and trained Historians opinions. The General Authorities should receive a revelation on the subject.
LOL. The LDS General Authorities would love for the church's history of polygamy to just disappear.
@@randyjordan5521 Oh I disagree! Big picture they need it or else the oft-repeated teaching that “the prophet/president can never lead the church astray” is obliterated. This will lead people to rethink the entire structure of the church, realize that men are not to be trusted to steer this ship alone and soon you’ll have folks demanding priestesses partnered in the church just like fathers and mothers are partnered in the home. That is to be avoided at ALL COSTS ;)
So William Clayton's journal says there was a revelation and one thing it said was that Moses had many wives. Is there any other witness of Moses not being a monogamist? In the mouth or two or three witnesses . . . (not just one). Also, Isaac was not a polygamist like section 132:1 says he was.
the Old Testament? Numbers 12:1
@@welcome2schoolBy this time his first wife has completely dropped out of the picture, and it's been like 40 years since he married her. So it's very possible that she was dead when he married this other woman and didn't have them both at once.
Brian seems to be guilty himself of being an "amateur historian" by omitting ("not looking at the evidence") some very relevant pieces of evidence.
Anything I've ever learned or investigated indicates Joseph never had the chance to physically practice plural marriage before he was murdered. The witch hunt continues. :>)
I hope people are willing to put in the work and come to their own conclusions on this. I read the gospel topic essays, Saints, rough stone rolling, Brian Hales work, Todd Comptons work, studied D&C 132 extensively etc and just couldn’t find peace or settle the narrative these sources support. I can understand why people step away after reading these ‘approved’ sources. I finally realized that we are only being told one side of the story and that side has a 180 year old narrative to protect. I won’t tell anyone what to believe but please realize there is more to this than you may think, and be careful to not throw out Joseph and the restoration if things initially feel uncomfortable.
Brian hales the the reason we're still trapped in this belief system. He's the author of the gospel topic essays and has written many books on the subject. He needs it to be true so his "good" name isn't challenged. The reason so many women are leaving the church because no one wants to think God looks at them as breeding cattle to make seed for men or we'll be destroyed. Hales supports that narrative
D&C 132 states the Lord's house is a house of order and not a house of confusion. Clearly, this whole topic is one of confusion. Comments about Solomon and David in D&C 132 conflicts with statements in the Book of Mormon. Conflicts between D&C 132: 61-63 guidelines (up to10 virgins) and actual practice. Gaps between what Brigham Young prophesied would happen (world would adopt as superior) vs what did happen in the late 1800's - implies to me that, regardless of who started it, this may be one of those examples that proves "even prophets, seers and revelators make mistakes"
In an 1887 interview, Joseph's former counselor in the church presidency, William Law, explained this contradiction: “The way I heard of it [the plural marriage revelation] was that Hyrum gave it to me to read. I was never in a High Council where it was read, all stories to the contrary notwithstanding. Hyrum gave it to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it and then be careful with it and bring it back again. I took it home, and read it and showed it to my wife. She and I were just turned upside down by it; we did not know what to do. I said to my wife, that I would take it over to Joseph and ask him about it. I did not believe that he would acknowledge it, and I said so to my wife. But she was not of my opinion. She felt perfectly sure that he would father it. When I came to Joseph and showed him the paper, he said: ‘Yes, that is a genuine revelation.’ I said to the prophet: ‘But in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants there is a revelation just the contrary of this.’ ‘Oh,’ said Joseph, ‘that was given when the church was in its infancy, then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is necessary to give them strong meat’ We talked a long time about it, finally our discussion became very hot and we gave it up. From that time on the breach between us became more open and more decided every day, after having been prepared for a long time. But the revelation gave the finishing touch to my doubts and showed me clearly that he was a rascal." I assume you're familiar with the oft-repeated Mormon principle of teaching "milk before meat." This is where it originated.
I do not contest that Joseph was sealed to many women but I find no primary sources that confirm that Joseph was married in a physical and civil sense to more than Emma. Second-hand stories are rampant. Emma said Joseph was married only to her (in all the ways that marriage means today). I am not a polygamy denier but I am a denier of any primary source and evidence existing to prove that he had conjugal relations with any other than Emma. He was a viral man and we have no offspring from any except Emma. We talk and talk but why is the concrete conclusion that he practiced polygamy in the same sense that Brigham Young did? Let's not make it "doctrine" that he was a polygamist. Also, the original copy of Section 132 is not where we got Section 132.
women saying they were his wife would be first hand sources. as would women who said they had relations with him.
Emma Smith needed 6 years to pass that test, no living decedents in the first 6 years, of course they could have been celibate
It's not like people in the 1800s didn't understand how contraceptive practices worked either. Wrapping your member in sheepskin or animal bladders made it less likely that a child would be conceived. People used honey, rock salts, and acacia wood as spermicide. To say that because there were no children therefore there was no coitus is laughable.
LOL. If Joseph's polygamy practice didn't include sex, then Emma needn't have ordered Fanny Alger, Eliza R. Snow, and the Partridge sisters to leave her house. She knew very well what her husband was up to.
Hi Bob, maybe you would want to read my three volumes: Joseph Smith's Polygamy: History and Theology. There you can "find" primary sources "that confirm" JS introduced and practiced plural marriage.
Regarding the amateur vs trained historian concept, in the Lord’s preface to the restoration He foretold: “The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh. But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world” (D&C 1:19-20) It has always been the Lord’s way to call on the weak to break down established traditions by bringing forth greater light and knowledge. Jesus prayed: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” - Mat 11:25
The argument that Joseph is the author of Section 132 is dubious at best. I find Brian's argument that Joseph taught polygamy in any form flimsy. But more importantly I don't see ANY evidence that Joseph actually PRACTICED it. Which seems very odd, of not impossible. Only some non contemporaneous affidavits??
Women who were his supposed wives swore he was polygamous. Now whether you believe them or not, you can't call their statements "no evidence". Statements are evidence. We're not going to be finding any sex tapes in the archives.
This is dishonest. There's plenty of evidence, you're acting as if there's none. There's none that you find convincing, apparently. But why are you pretending as if there isn't any? Were you not listening when he talked about Melissa Lot testifying she was Joseph's plural wife "in every way?" Look at this from all angles, not only your 'side.'
I’ve read all the saints books and man do they prooftext their sources.
There are many errors and issues relating to the claims in saints and how they compare to the “sources” used to justify their claim. It’s almost as though they don’t think people will look up the references.
Brian, if you believe in transparency then why aren’t you trying to get all of the diaries that the church has yet to release. Saying you believe in transparency is cute, but you don’t walk the walk.
Neither do you!!!!!
Brian's initial argument at 38-39 minutes that "spiritual wifery" and polygamy/plural marriage are not the same thing (and that Joseph condemned one while practicing the other) amounts to, "Satan established his practice after the Lord established his." That's the least scholarly position you can possibly take, and I wish Brian hadn't begun his answer to the question that way.
During Smith's lifetime, the teams "plural marriage" and "spiritual wifery" were used interchangeably. After Joseph's death, church leaders and writers fabricated a narrative that Joseph's "plural marriage" practice was inspired and proper, and that John C. Bennett came up with a competing "spiritual wifery" practice. Those leaders and writers' agenda was to separate the "good guy" Joseph from the "bad guy" Bennett, when in fact, Joseph and his followers used the term "spiritual wifery" as well, and both practices amounted to the same thing---having sex with people to whom they were not legally married. Former Nauvoo stake president William Marks wrote this in an 1853 affidavit: "When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church. … Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks, … we are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? He said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church." So, Marks testified that Joseph Smith himself called his practice the "spiritual wife system." And that means that these Mormon apologists who assert that Bennett had a separate, unauthorized practice are wrong.
@@randyjordan5521 thanks for sharing that quote. Are you able to link to it in the JS papers? And are there any other JS papers quotes that suggest Joseph called valid polygamy "spiritual wifery"?
Maybe take a look at this: mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Hales-John-C.-Bennett.pdf
@@brianhales8971 thank you. I think I eventually found what you wanted me to read, and it was very helpful, although the link you provided here didn't work for me, and simply typing the URL brought me only to a document with the 3 sources claiming that John Bennett performed abortions, possibly for Joseph Smith's plural wives.
@@brianhales8971 I have tried to post a link to the article I think you intended me to read, but KZhead has removed it. It has the same base URL as the one you provided, but it ends in john-c-bennett-joseph-smiths-polygamy-addressing-question-reliability/
The ‘Amateur Historian’ description matches the modus operandi of so many LDS historians. Egyptologist Muhlestein admits as much quite openly. LDS historians seem much more concerned with apologetics than history.
Richard van Wagoner and Todd Compton are degreed historians. I suggest you read their books re: polygamy.
"The ‘Amateur Historian’ description matches the modus operandi of so many LDS historians." Tell that to the team of believing, professional, degreed Latter-day Saint historians at the Joseph Smith Papers or Richard Bushman: the degreed, professional historian, preeminent biographer of Joseph Smith, and believer. "Egyptologist Muhlestein admits as much quite openly." No he doesn't. That is sheer propaganda. He made a point about how or current positions sometimes color how we asses evidence. That is it. Kerry Muhelstein has a PhD in Egyptology from UCLA and is considered one of the foremost experts on ritual sacrifice in ancient Egypt. I'd suggest you stop and really think before taking these half-baked potshots at people much more knowledgeable than you.
@@spencermarsh4253 I will definitely be using ‘half-baked’ potshot. Enjoyed that. The critique was not about whether the LDS historians are ‘degreed’ or not. That isn’t relevant to my point. Which is simply that they have generally used faith as a refutation for mounting evidence that much of LDS history as it has been officially presented by the LDS church, is simply not true. The Muhlestein example is a perfectly sound one. He said at a FAIR event that “Revelation is a source of knowledge that can be trusted over the years…It is a safe source of knowledge. That method of learning is one that I feel comfortable in trusting…We should pursue things with our mind, but we should also pursue it with the part of our mind that listens to the Holy Ghost.” He creates a paradigm where a scholar could come across something that refutes history as he would like it to be. But he can say to himself ‘But I know the church is true because it has been revealed to me by a feeling in my heart.’ That crosses the Rubicon from cold, empirical, and responsible historical analysis into motivated apologetics. And because of the dissonance this causes, LDS apologetics have often turned to ad hominem excoriation rather than scholarly elenchus. Serious Egyptology has utterly refuted the provenance of the Book of Abraham. But there is a religious motivation to try to prove it true, for example.
@@spencermarsh4253 " Kerry Muhelstein has a PhD in Egyptology from UCLA and is considered one of the foremost experts on ritual sacrifice in ancient Egypt" LOL. The non-Mormon expert Egyptologists I'm familiar with say that Muhlstein's writings re: the Book of Abraham are pure bunk. I suggest you read articles on the BOA by other Mormon Egyptologists such as Stephen Thompson and Edward Ashment.
@SaintsUnscripted Not very nice of you to deep-six my response. Seems more ethical to let discussions play out. Your prerogative of course.
Brian Hales has more books on polygamy than any other publisher. Plus, he's the author of Gospel Topic Essays. Of course he has to defend polygamy. He has spent his life obsessing over it, writing it, and uses coercion on anyone who challenges him and threatens them with excommunication as though he has that authority. After watching him stumble on other channels, he's no one to be respected(sorry). He has absolutely No credibility when his behavior is that of a teenagers. He's great in conversation as long as you agree with him.
Your comment about "Amateruist Histortians" is interesting. If you're referring to study and prayer as amatuer, which, by the way, is how Joseph received his knowledge, your comment strikes me akin to something Charles Anthon would say.
Hi Lisa The title "amateur historian" reflects both the training and the methodology of the scholar. If they have a degree in history, I'm comfortable calling the professional historians. But many women and men without degrees have learned the methodologies of the professional historian and can easily contribute to the ongoing dialogues. I call these trained historians. For you and me, we should look at the techniques being employed. If someone starts with a theory and seeks to support it by sifting the historical record, grabbing was fits and ignoring what doesn’t, that is an amateur historian acting amateurishly, and their findings will be highly biased and less useful. But someone who is transparent with the evidence and follows the scientific method: 1. Observe 2. Theorize 3. Test the theory (by applying it against ALL available evidence) can produce useful findings.
So what would be the point of proving Joseph didn't practice polygamy? To exonerate Joseph? Then if that is exoneration, what do we call Brigham Young's polygamy? You see, The history of polygamy in the true Church becomes problematic only when it isn't completely understood.
Exactly! It's so weird to me how as a church we sweep Joseph's polygamy under a rug and deny, deny. But Brighams was acceptable. It makes no sense. Brigham literally learned it from Joseph.
Maybe the game is the church was correct until 1845 when a false prophet took control?
Simple - Adultery
These Utah Mormons who are currently denying that Joseph practiced polygamy believe that polygamy is wrong and that D&C 132 is a false revelation. Some of them believe that Brigham Young concocted the revelation after Joseph's death, and that he is the man responsible for propagating polygamy all those years. I don't blame the deniers for hating polygamy, but their theory that Joseph didn't start it is simply false and misguided. Those people believe that since polygamy is wrong, then if Joseph was a true prophet, then he couldn't have started it. So they come up with all kinds of wacky, nonsensical apologetics to make themselves believe that Joseph had nothing to do with it. Their underlying problem is that they're emotionally and psychologically unwilling to accept the historical facts.
@@randyjordan5521 Brigham concocted a lot so I would not use him as a reliable witness. Black priesthood ban, blood atonement, polygamy, danites, pro slavery, and more. He was diametrically opposite Joseph on almost every point morally, politically, socially so one does have to wonder. Joseph died poor and Brigham died rich after using tithing funds personally. The blood atonement of Brigham was removed right after he died, polygamy 25 years later, priesthood ban 1970's and so on. Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to blacks and under Brigham this policy was stopped and the priesthood was removed from these men. If I had to choose between these two men it would be a 100% to 0% who I would trust.
Read Jacob 1-3 vs. D+C 132 (released 8 years after Joseph's death), Helaman 6, and Mosiah 11, and you won't even need historical evidence or lack therof to know what happened. Follow the Holy Ghost and test the fruits.
Yes! My wife and I just did this, we finished and she said, I can’t believe this is in our scriptures. And she stopped me after verse 34 in D&C 132 and said, that does not sound like the Lord speaking, or Joseph Smith.
I don’t “need“ Joseph Smith to either be a polygamist or not. If it was revealed to him that plural marriage was acceptable to God, then it is acceptable to me. I don’t really care whether it was done or not. I only care whether it was done at God‘s behest. Also, I find it strange that people feel they are in a better position, as self-appointed modern-day prophets, to question my prophet than was my prophet himself. I don’t understand the thinking, “Eureka! Joseph Smith was actually a polygamist! Are you people grossed out by that enough to hate the entire church itself?!” I think that, professing themselves to be wise, they will be exposed as fools.
The church regularly goes through remarkable contortions to try to explain away their history.
I thought people asked for explanations and that is why we are explaining. There really is no winning I guess. I guess you can just hide under your contorted CES letters question mark and hope it gives you shade from God.
@Jacob Samuelson - why is it a big deal anyway to the LDS regarding Joseph Smith's alleged polygamy (pretty much established by Lindsay Hansen Park on the Mormonism Live episode last Weds) when Brigham Young's polygamy was quite open an the church named universities after him? Actually rewatching Under the Banner of Heaven right now and it reminds me of all the nonsense believers can delude themselves will. You can take my views for what they're worth as a nevermo ex-Catholic atheist/agnostic.
@@williamcharles2117 Banner of Heaven is a theatrical dramatization that was designed to make Mormons viewed in the 1970s as these radical authority pleasing cult followers. Now considering America had a Nixon hippie life crisis we could have and do a Banner in Heaven dramatization in film for literally every social movement in Christianity or out. The culture pushed people to their roots. For the Banner of Heaven, which didn't follow the book nor the real life story very well BTW, that meant an Orthodox oppressed Mormon, making an out by creating his own religion and murdering people to do it. It in no way reflects Mormon beliefs, cultures, or behaviors with light to the majority of its followers. This would be like saying a catholic women aborted her child so Catholics believe in abortion. Anyways to answer your question, the Church had and has nothing to hide. Any person who wanted to learn literally anything or about the Church had and has access to the material l. People like John Dehlin and friends would say otherwise and push an agenda to dramatize the reality to entertain their audiences but the truth is the truth. We may not be particularly proud of some leaders decisions, but we dont feel the need to hide it and critique it fairly. When people say we are contorting the truth and at the same time watching Hollywood representations or listening to antimormon propaganda which always only has one side of anything, then of course the truth seems contorted when your only sources are crazy mirrors. We have the data. You are welcomed to process it as you will, but regurgitating and feeding others whatever processed mush you came up with is gross and just shows you probably want the world to burn.
@Jacob Samuelson - the church is slippery with their history, with changing declarations of what is taught/not taught. And they claim information has always been available to the members, but that is just not true. When a church leader says that they're as honest as they know how to be, that qualification is not very reassuring. As far as watching a dramatization of murders committed by those steeped in religious irrationalism, I grew up with Mormon neighbors across the street (back before President Rusty condemned that term as a victory for Satan), and I feel that UtBoH captures a sense of the piety that my Mormon neighbors displayed. Reading official church publications confirms the claims of being led by the Holy Spirit and the nature of the prophets and other such aspects of what I view as irrationalism. The recent SEC ruling only further confirm the feet if clay of church leadership. They're not special at all. In fact, they're quite ordinary in every respect.
@@williamcharles2117 This is a common and sad problem ... when people like you actually believe that books and movies like Under the Banner of Heaven is a true historical representation of the facts, when they are simply fictional nonsense intended as anti-Mormon entertainment. I guess the truth isn't important to some anymore.
27:55 explains it all. I would love it if the most controversial issue in the church's past was just a misunderstanding.
It scares a lot of members to consider this-even though yes, this really would be the best case scenario!-because they think that would mean the Christmas lightbulb effect where the power has been entirely cut. I think we have good scriptural precedent that people can repent from the abomination of polygamy and God’s power will show up immediately (think King Noah’s priest Alma). We are in such an interesting position as a church on this. We have physically repented of polygamy in that we no longer do it, but we still hold onto the doctrine of it through our belief and scripture. Personally I think this gets solved theologically, and then the history will make more sense.
Hi Isaac, Perhaps it would fix things if JS was a monogamist and dozens of his followers and Church leaders were co-conspirators in a lie involving the practice of plural marriage. I don't think it helps anything really. It is unfortunate that untrained historians push that agenda. But what may also happen to those now defending the idea that JS was a monogamist is that they eventually confront the overwhelming supportive evidence that JS was a polygamist. Then their faith wains in the restoration, and they drift away into naturalism. My late wife Laura Hales wrote: "For nineteenth-century Saints, the challenge was living polygamy they believe God commanded. For twenty-first-century Saints, the challenge is believing God commanded polygamy." Many historical controversies become less bothersome the more we learn about them. Polygamy is a hybrid. Research supports that religion, not libido, drove JS. He wasn't perfect, but he was always worthy. But the reality is that the Bible and the restoration both describe God-approved plural marriage. Since men can do it and women can't, an inequality persists that is not dissolved through additional knowledge. Some say God would not be that unfair, but these are people who believe God is fair in sending a baby to be born in Africa in poverty at the same time a baby is born to privilege in Boston. The truth seems to be that we shouldn't judge God and should accept that in eternity, the fairness of God will be apparent, even regarding the temporary commandment for the Saints to practice polygamy between the 1840s and 1904.
@@gwendolynwyne exactly. Alma had the power to baptize even though his priesthood came from wicked King Noah.
@@gwendolynwyne the only thing I disagree with you on is that we don’t currently practice it, because we do as far as sealing more than one woman to one man after the death of the first wife.
@@aubreegittins9271Oh I do agree that we practice it doctrinally, but it is more in a theoretical sense/in our hearts. Not that that doesn’t matter, it’s just that I think it is far, far different from men physically having sexual intercourse with multiple women, and women staying in marriages where their husbands are having sexual intercourse with other women. When that is physically happening it attracts a level of destruction that we see among the FLDS and other polygamists, which is in line with BoM Jacob’s prophecies to the Nephites in Jacob 3. I feel like we are so close to seeing truth about this because we really don’t “do” polygamy, we just believe in the tradition that’s been handed down to us from our fathers. Surely we can let go of that, right? :)
Luckily for us the early saints were a record keeping people.. and when someone tapers with or create false documents there is always proof of that.. when someone is taping with anything at all they are upto badness..
Are you referring to the Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook plates?
Yes...the church admits he was a polygamist. People have always claimed he was a polyamist church included. Enough early prophets wrote on the topic of polygamy. Why is there even a debate. Lds website confirms he was a polygamist. So if he wasnt the church is lying. If he was the church is disgusting. One or the other.
My Great Great Aunt, Sarah Scott was sealed to Joseph Smith as one of his plural wives. She had been married to James Mulholland who passed away Dec 1839. Sarah’s brother, John Scott was an intimate friend and bodyguard to Joseph and he bore testimony that Joseph Smith personally taught him regarding polygamy. John took three additional wives following the death of the Prophet.
Fascinating
Most researchers do not believe that Sarah Scott was sealed to JS during his lifetime, but was posthumously sealed to him through a vicarious ordinance.
Thats wild
It's like listening to polygamists now, defending their position even when they say what never was, of course lying for the Lord and believing their current "prophet" is more important than the word of the dead prophet. It must be in front of Joseph Smith now, what will happen there? How many religious fanatics would think their prophet would save them for lying for the KINGDOM OF "GOD"? Would you believe that Jesus would sell? God have mercy on "such an army of prevaricators and perjurers" as the Prophet Joseph Smith said on May 26, 1844.
@@josemonogamiaopoligamia7220 yeah and that old liar Peter who denied the Lord three times and refused to take the gospel to Gentiles. Guess lying is part and parcel with Christianity. Mormon Prophets are in good company. Too bad you’re not.
Yes Emma DID deny he practiced it! She was right, he didn't practice it!
26:17 this doesn't seem to be correct, as JSP has not nor will they publish William Clayton's diary(ies) in full including images. Unfortunately. And we have reason to believe these are a precious jewel of a historical record relating to this and many other things. I wish this were addressed. @Brian Hales
The WIlliam Clayton journals will be published in the near future by the Church. But several historians have already read. I spoke with one who tells me that there's nothing really significant regarding polygamy that hasn't already been extracted. At least when they are published, the conspiracy theorists will lose some of their imagined evidence.
@@brianhales8971 Thanks for the reply! I stand corrected. That's news to me, but good news! I was going off of recollection of perhaps the church historian some years ago saying they won't be published indefinitely due to the secret/sacred nature of certain entries. If known, will they be published in their entirety as extant, including images of the documents? Since possibly relevant also, and if known, are there extant but unpublished sections of Wilford Woodruff's diaries also? I can't recall... Having them published will at least give tangential if not substantial other info regarding celestial marriage in Nauvoo, provide a foundation of previous typescripts of the diaries, give transparency, and refute abscence-of-evidence and adverse-inference claims due to the diaries hidden/unknown contents till now.
That journal should also be forensically analyzed by a 3rd party. It’s very suspicious that they promised to release it in 2017 but still nothing in 2023. What’s going on? This is very fishy.
@@brianhales8971 if the JSP have been declared finished, when are we going to see this publication? It would be great if the fully diary is honestly and openly released. There is no need to keep it secret, unless….
@@Heartsinmelody Hi, I'm not sure what you are referring to, but all of Joseph Smith's writings and associated documents have been published with vol. 15. If you are referring to the William Clayton journals, they are working on them now and they will be published in the next few years. But multiple historians like James Allen, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, and others have already seen them and transcribed large portions. I asked a JSP historian if there was anything really new in the parts that have yet to be published. He responded, "not really." And of course, all of Clayton's references to JS practicing polygamy have been transcribed correctly.
You have shown very little to no evidence to back up what your saying
He showed evidence in this video. He shows even more in his books.
10:05 Brian, the whole letter of doctrine covenants, 132 is about polygamy. It wasn’t a letter to try to convince Emma to live the law of monogamous eternal marriage. If you read this comment, please help me understand why my mind isn’t able to make the same jump you and others make.
I mean he probably didn't mention it because it isn't relevant to his current point. I assume he knows what the problem was
@@_Squiggle_ I’ve had enough things to be that Emma was really not happy about the idea of polygamy. Because the revelation that monogamous eternal marriage, it was specifically written to get her on board with Polygamy.
132 is not about polygamy. Brian addresses this in detail in one or two other Saints Unscripted videos, and breaks down the entire section.
@@DannyAGrayLOL
Hi again, Plural marriage is mentioned in verse one of D&C 132, but it is not mentioned again until verse 32. The intervening verses discuss a much grander and more important teachings, that of eternal marriage. Plural marriage is a small part of eternal marriage. It is a principle of the gospel that may be commanded, not commanded, or permitted as God desires. There is no authorized polygamy in the Book of Mormon (for example). D&C 132 is a revelation, not a letter. Please take a look at what has already been published on this topic. It is probably to complicated to explain in a YT thread. Thanks
If I have 1000 2x4s that are just 1 millimeter short, you still have short 2x4s. Multiple second-hand evidence is just that -- short of a definitive conclusion. If we accept second-hand accounts as evidence that Joseph was a sexual polygamist we could say "from the Propandence of the Evidence" he did it.
There are numerous first-hand accounts from people intimately involved with Joseph Smith which were published during his lifetime.
Hi Bob, There are dozens of firsthand eyewitness reports. Let me ask: Do you believe in the Bible? Most of the accounts describing Christ's miracles are "secondhand." It is silly to label a group of evidences this way. We should look at each one individually to determine their reliability.
@@brianhales8971 Evidence is a foggy term. Truth is not a foggy term. Evidence should be rated as Definite, Most Likely, Likely, Maybe, and Not Likely. I apply the criminal standard of guilt (factual) rather than the civil standard (Preponderance of the Evidence). The Lord and Joseph Smith would be "first-hand". I consider all others secondary.
I agree. So the July 12, 1843 revelation is firsthand evidence that JS introduced and practiced plural marriage.
@@bobwilkinson1217 " The Lord and Joseph Smith would be "first-hand". Yeah, unless Joseph Smith was lying. If Smith denied teaching or practicing polygamy, but 40 or 50 other people, including many of his plural wives, said that he did, then who do you believe?
Good on. You guys to drill buzz words into people's heads.
11:00 Are they saying polygamy is okay if they are not officially married? Because I'm wondering if that's how many "get around" the evidence. And is the "conspiracy" that he did or did not practice polygamy. Either way, why would that be a "conspiracy"?
We can never be sure about history. No saint is perfect but in my opinion LDS is the best American religion.
I don't doubt that he practiced polygamy but I wonder how many he consummated because there is no proof of children from those relationships. In an age of no birth control other than the pull out method, I would think children would have resulted from those relationships. Just my two cents.
Your two cents is in point
Plus… also wasn’t the purpose of polygamy to raise up a righteous seed? Sounds like he failed that purpose. It doesn’t make any sense. I don’t think he practiced it and I think we have TONS of reason to just keep seeing it like he did. It is the ‘therefore’ that is uncomfortable, if he didn’t. Causes us to just through him under the bus like everyone else did.
Your two cents is worth thousands when converted to BC Hales currency.
Don Bradley covers that on ward radio and it's believe that he was only sealed to woman he couldn't have relations with. It's believe he never shared a bed with anyone but his wife
Constantly interrupting long-form interviews with clips is so annoying, it detracts from the content.
I've mentioned that before. The clips are *always* jarring reminders we aren't actually in the room with them.
11:40 Brian, the post manifesto, polygamous marriages that were performed could not be traced back to the prophet of the day either. Right? There was plausible deniability a couple decades there. So that can’t be the determining factor.
Hi Anthony, Church Presidents Wilford Woodruff (1890-1898), Lorenzo Snow (1898-1901), and Joseph F. Smith (1901-1904) allowed a few (about 14 a year on average) plural sealings to occur between 1890 and 1904. The design was for these sealing ordinances to be performed outside of the United States in Canada and Mexico. Still, the reality is that many, perhaps a majority, were performed within the country. The press discovered these, and the US Congress required President Joseph F. Smith to testify in Washington in 1904. Upon his return from Washington, as the keyholder (D&C 132:7), he declared that no additional sealings would be permitted. That meant that even his counselors in the First Presidency, other apostles, or anyone else who had been authorized to seal plural unions in the past, were disfranchised from that role (see D&C 132:18). In my research, I cannot identify even one plural marriage prospectively authorized by Joseph F. Smith after April of 1904. The plural marriages secretly allowed during this period were an embarrassment to the Church in some ways. Regardless, they are “old news” today and constitute a difficult chapter where members’ desires to follow God conflicted with the laws of mankind.
@@brianhales8971 The fact that new plural marriages continued to be authorized into the 1900s tells us that Woodruff's 1890 Manifesto was no "revelation from God." As writer Samuel Taylor humorously quoted, one Swedish Mormon immigrant of the day said that the Manifesto was issued "yust to fool the Yentiles."
@@randyjordan5521 Hi Randy, I respectfully disagree. Wilford Woodruff, the keyholder who had to approve any eternal marriage, declared that God inspired him to issue the 1890 Manifesto. But, if you read what it says, you will understand that it did not declare polygamy was ending; it declared that polygamy was no longer commanded. Leaders had largely stopped teaching polygamy as a commandment in the years leading up to 1890 due to governmental persecution anyway. But the 1890 manifesto codified that position. Plus, your opinion, and my opinion, of the 1890 or 1904 manifestos have no real validity. Why? Because D&C 132:18 tells us that no eternal marriage is valid in the afterlife unless it is “through him whom I have anointed and appointed to this power.” So the ONLY (sorry to shout) opinion that matters is the opinion of the keyholder, who was Wilford Woodruff in 1890 and Joseph F. Smith in 1904. And JFS did not authorize any new plural marriages after April 1904 (according to my research).
Thank goodness the Lord brought forth the Book of Mormon. Satan uses issues like this to confuse members and destroy tender testimonies. The Book of Mormon is the foundation of my testimony. For me to deny it would be to betray God, because he knows that I know it’s true. Therefore, I march on firm in the faith to my last dying breath. 😊
38:04 There are many instances demonstrating that "spiritual wifery" and polygamy were used interchangeably and these are proven to have been the same thing in Joseph's usage of the terms. To claim that Joseph thought that polygamy was something entirely different than what Bennett was doing you have to pull an "amateur historian" move and ignore clear evidence you do not like. Joseph very much equated what Bennett was doing with polygamy. Just one citation is enough to ruin Brian's separation of terms: Joseph speaking to John Bennett - " Doctor! why are you using my name to carry on your hellish wickedness? Have I ever taught you that fornication and adultery was right, or poligamy or any such practices?" - Hyrum smith affidavit 17 May 1842 There are numerous other examples of "spiritual wifery" being used interchangeably with polygamy.
Using general conference corpus Hales could have found some interesting entries demonstrating that the church in Utah definitely used "spiritual wife doctrine" to refer to celestial plural marriage.
I think the most likely way to understand this quote is that Joseph never taught Bennett anything remotely close to spiritual wifery, the reference to fornication and adultery, or polygamy. This just reveals that Joseph never included Bennett in the circle of informed people he shared the principles of plural marriage with. There is no reason to assume that in Joseph's mind anything to do with spiritual wifery is related at all to the type of polygamy Joseph referred to as plural marriage. It is apparent that this is just wishful thinking on your part to confirm your bias.
@@rockartalan 'If you oppose what is called the " spiritual wife doctrine, " the Patriarchal Order, which is of God, that course will corrode you with a spirit of apostacy, and you will go overboard; ' Heber Kimball 1855 Conference talk. I have a lot more of them. It is apparent that you just have wishful thinking on your part to confirm your bias.
@@EverydayNormal The "spiritual wife doctrine" referred to in your quote by Heber C Kimball is not in any way close to the spiritual wifery taught and practiced by John C Bennett. If you could show that they are the same by laying out the descriptions of the two comparing them, you'll have a convert here. Go ahead, try it.
@@rockartalan There is a bit of a difference, but they are close enough that Joseph lumped them together. My point is that the term was used for both because they are similar. Hales has said in other places that Joseph denied "spiritual wifery" using those words to distinguish it from "plural/celestial marriage" and that he was being sly about using a term that applied to Bennett and not himself. That is false. They were "spiritual" wives because they were: 1) Definitely not "legal" or actual wives 2) Seduced using religious justification ^These are enough similarity for Joseph to refer to Bennett's actions and polygamy together. Other people commonly did too H. G. SHERWOOD, May 8, 1844 court testimony - "I recollect that near two years ago there was a fuss about John C. Bennets spiritual wife system before the High Council."
LOL. So Hales argument is basically, I am right because I am an expert, and everyone who things Joseph told the truth and was not a polygamist is wrong...BECAUSE they are amateurs. Appeal to authority much?
At the 16-18 minute mark, Brian tells us that Hyrum was present for the revelation and that he read the revelation on plural marriage to the high council. I would like clarification when exactly that all happened in relationship to the stories of Hyrum's personal doubting that there was such a revelation (briefly mentioned here and at minute 23).
July 12, 1843 (Joseph Smith Papers) i think the reference is if there was a revelation not if there was a teaching. ( see D&C 101 paragraph 4 1835)
The high council meeting took place on August 12, 1843. Hyrum was reluctant to accept the revelation at first, but he changed his mind after Joseph promised him a higher position and power in the city. By the time of the high council meeting, Hyrum was an enthusiastic advocate.
@@randyjordan5521 What contemporary support can you share that shows Hyrum's change and Joseph's promise? Hyrum was already co-prophet at the time. What higher position and power was he offered?
@@talkofchrist You've answered your own question. Hyrum was initially opposed to polygamy, but after John C. Bennett left the scene in 1841, Joseph promoted Hyrum to co-president, and Joseph also made him vice mayor of Nauvoo. That meant more power and money from land sales deals etc. So it's no mystery as to why Hyrum changed his mind about polygamy. Money for nothing and chicks for free.
@@randyjordan5521 KZhead deleted my first response to this because it contained a link. I'll try to rewrite