133: Women React to Mormon Land - Part Two
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 вер 2024
- Please consider supporting this podcast:
Venmo: @Michelle-Stone-24
Patreon.com/132problems
Mormon Land podcast episode 345: Did Joseph Smith Practice Polygamy?
/ did-joseph-smith-pract...
open.spotify.c...
Great Podcast! I enjoy watching all four of theses women who have done their research to bring the truth to all of us. ❤ Thanks for all your hard work!!
Historians: If you're a good historian, you're always willing to change your historical narrative.
Michelle: I've had to change my historical narrative, and here's why.
Historians: Michelle, you're not a historian, so we don't have to change our narrative.
Michelle: ??? But the evidence...
Historians: Shh. Shh, little girl...
Every time I was confronted with polygamy: as a 17 year old, in the MTC as a 21 year old missionary, in my 40’s, I would feel confusion, it didn’t make sense! My spirit knew this wasn’t from God, it wasn’t right. I felt someday I would know the truth!
I am so grateful I know the truth now!❤
Just because you didn't like polygyny doesn't mean it's wrong. Yes the Mormon version of polygyny gets things wrong, but the practice in general is approved by God. We need to base our beliefs on His Words, not our feelings.
@@MichaelEllisYT the only person you’re convincing is yourself!
@@Esty120 I'm just a simple farmer planting seeds.
@@Esty120 Thankfully the truth isn't determined by your icks.
@@MichaelEllisYTplease enlighten us. Where do God’s words promote polygamy?
Michelle, you talk about your mother being asked to walk behind her husband in the temple reminds me of my husband’s mother. She was a member of the LDS church but his father was not. When she went to her bishop about taking out her endowments, he told her that she needed to wait for her husband before she could take out her own endowments. My husband’s dad was not a member and was never going to be. She went from Ohio all the way to the Salt Lake temple and she said they would only let her in the basement (do baptisms). His mother ended up having her name removed. She said that the LDS church had nothing for her. It is unfortunate that according to the views of the LDS church, her salvation depended on her non-member husband.
That is so sad.
Church vs doctrine. 2 very different things.
Lies.
the publication of Joseph Smith papers are like the Gutenberg bible. People can now read for themselves what Joseph said and not be confined to what others say he said (and did). It’s not going to stop. This will not go well for the Church, just as it did not go well the first time around. God is once again raising a people to put an end to an abhorrent teaching. I hope the Brethren listen and take the time to read for themselves.
@@permaprepper8130 why be part of a church if it teaches false doctrine & lacks discernment
The church always taught that polygamy started with Brigham. It wasn't until around 2012-2013, when caught between a rock and a hardplace, that the story changes, and now Joseph becomes the prophet of polygamy. Does this seem a little odd to anyone else? With all due respect. The church does not have a favorable record when it comes to many aspects of the history of what was taught vs. what is truth. It seems to be moldable to fit what narrative is most pressing. I suspect that there must be something of far worse consequence that it can not allow anything not started by Joseph to fall in the lap of Brigham? There is something the church and its historians need to keep hidden. I would hope the lessons of the past will no longer repeat itself.
Do you mean 1912 or another year?
"started"? Under Brigham the Church first publicly recognized polygamy, as a revelation which Joseph taught. The debate centers on who was married and who was adulterous.
@whatsup3270 The church never officially publicly announced that Joseph practiced polygamy until 2012-2013 when it released the Gospel Topic Essays. The only wife of Joseph that had been taught was Emma. D&C 132 was never included until the later years of Brigham Young.
@@whatsup3270Brigham Young was named in a divorce suit when he was on his mission. He was committing adultery with a married woman.
@@whatsup3270the debate centers on whether or not Joseph Smith was a liar. We know Brigham was. Joseph was not.
I was married over 30 years ago. I darned well remember the details. Barring cognitive disabilities, What's the percent chance ANY woman would EVER forget her marriage date and place?! And more over, would a woman married to a public figure like Joseph Smith, forget? Zero percent.
I love when people speak with such clarity! It helps cut through the gas lighting we are constantly dealing with. You are exactly right! Thank you for this comment..
Love that Karen has joined the group discussion. Her insite is super!
Its amazing that in 1842 these same people signed documents saying Joseph was a monogamous but in 1869 they claim he is a polygamist They are the liars no matter what! Joseph , Hyrum and Emma never taught anything but monogamy.
Ogden temple, December 1986. I was told to walk behind my soon to be husband. My husband wouldn't allow it!😂. Hes a keeper!
I LOVE THAT! I can't believe that was still happening in 1986! Ugh!
This is baffling! And appalling!! I was married in the Oakland temple in 1981 and no such counsel was given, thank heaven! I wonder why some temples taught such ludicrous things and others opted out or never bought into such stuff in the first place.
@@ggrace1133 It wasn't part of the ceremony. My husband's temple escort told me to. He said it was traditional. I tried to get behind my (then fiance) husband, and he just said, "You're not doing that.". He took my hand and pulled me up to his side and told the escort, "We're not doing that." And, we didn't. But, it left an impression and a scar on my heart.
@@sisknothinbutruth2684 thanks for more details. By that tradition then, seems like the Lord would have taken a bone from Adam’s back to create Eve instead of a rib from his side lol. Your hubby sounds like a terrific guy.
@@ggrace1133I think Utah has a different culture than the "mission field". I was never told to walk behind my husband. That would have set off alarm bells to me.
The Rosa Parks comparison was BRILLIANT! Y'all rawk,
Michelle, you’re truly gorgeous, but you are looking more and more gaunt, tired, and even exhausted. Please slow down and rest more. We aren’t going to go away. You’re in a grueling marathon. We need all of you women so please prioritize your health, sisters. We truly love and appreciate you all of you.
Yes, I'm trying to figure that all out. I really don't want to burn out, or have sickness slow me down? I'm really hoping to get to the bottom of it. ❤️
@@MichelleBStone you have gotten to the bottom of the situation and concluded the truth of the matter. Now you are just outlining the evidence more and more for us all, so that we can see it and ponder it ourselves, and you’re responding to critics to defend yourself and keep the discussion going. 👍❤️🙏
I’d love a summary video of all the evidences in a nutshell that you have seen to date for, and against, with you giving the full context surrounding the evidence for Joseph being a polygamist which easily discredits so much of it. I know that would be very time consuming. Perhaps some day. Thank YOU for what you are doing in seeking out the truth 👍❤️🙏
Michelle you should make a “Short” of your passionate retelling of the story about the girl who found out about polygamy when she was brought to Utah by her new husband.
I am a generational member and have been around the block a time or two. I will have to say that Michelle proves herself much more credible than just about any other church historian. One quality I so admire. Honesty and independant. That is where Michelle is head over heals above those who receive a war chest of money and easier access to the historical record. Thumbs up and much respect. God bless you and the crew for your time and effort to uncover truth.
Part of Christ's cruicial teachings were to "liberate the captives". But Brigham was the captor!! Makes me ill.
Great way to put it💯.
Sexu-l Bondage.
I own you sweetheart :)
But Jesus also affirmed all the commandments regulating slavery and also prescribing punishment for crimes. So we cannot interpret Jesus words and undermining the very Law he implemented. His gospel and law gives us freedom, but not freedom from the Law.
@@PresidentBrighamYoung LOL, I smake you with my purse and run.
@@MichaelEllisYT I know you believe in this stuff Michael, but I won't be where you are. I hope for your sake you're on your knees asking God, just once.
Excited you're going to do a Brigham power video.
Warren Jeffs polygamy is the same as Brighams polygamy. Polygamists that I know (I know a lot of them) read and follow every single word that Brigham said. They quote Brigham more than they quote scripture and they practice their religion to the letter of everything Brigham taught.
That is my experience as well.
Yep. I live in St George where they are all over the place. And yeah, they believe we're in the wrong
What heartbreaking stories😭😭. You ladies are a godsend😇🙏
If polygamy was of God there would be no need to protect or defend it
People have been defending Christ’s name and his gospel from the beginning. And HE, certainly is from God.
One of the most non-relative comparisons I've seen today.. Congrats on the intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance. @@kristinrichmond8185
@@ericreed4535 I don’t mean to be dishonest. She made the claim that if something comes from God, it doesn’t need to be defended. From my point of view, that isn’t true. Your sarcasm isn’t necessary. You can make your point without it.
@@kristinrichmond8185 The problem is you substituted "polygamy" for something. Polygamy described by Cowdery as filthy, nasty and dirty involving young girls. A relative comparison would require something as controversial, morally repulsive. Don't defend the indefensible and you won't get sarcastic replies. Let me guess, you defend slavery in the bible too? What about millions of kids being killed in the global flood?
@@ericreed4535I’m sorry I misspoke.
Thank you, ladies! Joseph fought polygamy. I believe him.
I agree. Brook may have endangered her career with the way she supports the patriarchy abuse of women from polygamy. She is no different in a way than Eliza Snow as she (Brook) is also speaking to the patriarchy for her own gain as she seeks to speak to the establishment for her degree and her career. She is betraying women.
Can someone take ALL the times Joseph spoke against Polygamy and make an artificial intelligence video of him saying it. People love video and have a hard time going to the original documents and read them. It can be an AI documentary.
I know you're going to tell me to do it, but I have no idea how to do AI.
Wooooo.... what a great idea! I follow an account on IG who makes AI videos daily. He also believes Joseph is innocent. I'll ask if he'll do it.
@@StompMom5 That would be wonderful!!! 🤓
@@MommaCrissaHe said he'd be happy to but said he already ran it by Michelle and she didn't seem interested? He does AI so it's a little different from her shorts but he's fantastic!!
Oh! I must have not followed up! I don't remember. Yes, I think it would be fantastic. Please apologize for me for not being on the ball. I am very interested!
Brigham might have been a narcissist. Have a therapist (who can diagnose) look at the writings, proclamations, and speeches given by Brigham.
Mother was a convert; dad has polygamy in our history.
This whole idea of having someone on a podcast who is distinctly NOT aligned with a certain way of thinking in order to specifically explain that way of thinking, is bizarre to me.
In the church, one of the biggest pet peeves that most members and leaders have is when people go to sources that disagree with us for their information about us…
56:57 min. mark: did anyone else notice that Brooke is saying woman (singular) when she refers to women (plural). This change seems to coincide with people who do not pronounce a T in the middle of a word, such as Satan being pronounced Sa’an. Sorry, but this degradation of the language drives me nuts.
Yeah, they talked about this in part 1. But, yes it is strange when people speak like this.
I love the passion Michelle! I want to hear more from the Blue Tea Society. Was that the name of it? I think Brooke doesn't want to go through rhe pain of finding out the truth. Because it is life changing. To me it's a fabulous life change when you feel completely free with truth. Prayer goes hand in hand with truth, so how can historians do work without it? It goes against everything Jesus taught.
I did an episode on it. I loved learning about it. I think I might do a series of episodes where I read Jennie's book aloud. It definitely needs to be more centered in the conversation.
@@MichelleBStone Oh! I'll have to search through your videos.
That sounds like a great plan for a series on them.
Because, "words matter"! 😊
Any specific words ?
@@1god-126 Well, when it's truth yes it matters. Just like when Christians through our the world say, "it's in the Word". They are talking about the Bible. True words are God's words, false words will not testify of Christ nor will the Holy Spirit witness to our souls truth. In the beginning was "the word". We as humans may not be perfect at the word, but as we speak God's true words they are magnified and he wants them preached so that all the world has the truth. In the Book of Mormon the doctrine of Christ is the most correct book of the truth that we now have. When we read it along with the Bible we have a great amount of truth. The reason why it matters so much is our hearts and souls can be free and at peace, because.... the truth shall set you free. God is truth.
Hope it helps.
comment. . .Given the fact that Emma's throwing the pregnant Eliza Snow down the Mansion House Stairs has been disproven, it's fascinating that she later affirms in trying to justify her signiture of the 1842 document that she was married to Joseph. Also, I honestly think Brigham'swords about the Relief Society should be qroblematic whether looking at it from a historian's point of view or an appologist's point of view. If looking at it from a historian's point of view, we would have to question whether Brigham honestly believed his own words and if he was honest in his claims of loyalty to Joseph Smith and his role as one to keep the wolves out of the fold. Looking at it from the appologist's point of view, in light of Joseph's clearly taught principle that a succeeding Prophet can in no way directly legally conqradict a previous Prophet, yet, since the Relief Society was sanctioned by the previous Prophet, one must then question Brigham's authority and legal right to act as a successor to Joseph and thus the unbroken authority of the LDS. Also, it's almost as if Brigham is implying that the very auxilary that the previous Prophet sanctioned and supported actually contributed to his premature death. That would be a pretty big blunder for a Prophet to make, unless of course it's argued that Joseph did it in order to allow the wicked people of the day to use their agency to reject truth if they so desired, but then, a logical question would be, if the very idea of the To elief Society was evil or destructive, why did succeeding leaders reinstate it and how do they account for its success today without Polygamy as it was practiced in the time of Brigham?
Isn’t Whitney the first “polygamy denier” after the Price’s? She deserves more credit for her work!
I think Whitney deserves an absolute ton of credit! I don't think she was necessarily the first to come to these conclusions, but the fact that she came to them on her own with the Lord and the evidence as her guide, and that she was willing to write a book about it, is absolutely incredible! I have immense respect and love for her.
@@MichelleBStone thank you for the reply. All of you are amazing women, I appreciate the sacrifice!
❤
Can we understand how women could embrace polygamy and write false affidavits through " Stockholm syndrome. How can a man, truly love more than one wife with all his heart and be a polygamist?
AI overview
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response to being held captive or abused, where a victim develops a psychological connection with their captor or abuser and begins to identify with them. Victims may develop positive associations with their captors, understand their goals, and even accept their demands.
Experts don't fully understand why this response occurs, but they think it may be a coping mechanism for people experiencing trauma. For example, victims may idealize their abuser and view any abuse as their own fault, in order to please the abuser and get in their good graces. They may believe that the more they bond with the abuser, the less likely they are to be abused.
I actually did an episode on this. I think trauma bonding is a more accurate term. I think that can help us understand many of the women, particularly Helen Mar Kimball.
Both are very accurate especially for the young girls. For them it was a captor situation that would create a trauma bond.
What disgusting men they were
@@MichelleBStone Again (reference to the Brian Hale's post since removed) these are the types of statements with deep consequences(implied). To have trauma bonding which is not the same as Stockholm syndrome you have to have prolonged trauma or prolonged captivity (for Stockholm). So, it begs the question of what was the prolonged trauma that caused the deep connection, which is proposed to cause the women to lie for their partner. The implication is the Holy Spirit's absence in the Leaders.
I honestly don't care what the "historians" think about any of it. They don't care and many by professional limitations cannot care about matters of doctrinal and spiritual truths. I also don't care what Joseph haters think about it. I want to know what faithful LDS think about it and, especially, church authorities. It is entirely possibly that church leaders are grappling with these issues and that it is wisdom in them, for now, for the greater good, not to engage in this matter at this time. Perhaps they have sought and not received inspiration from the Lord to do other than point seekers to the historians and prevent the practice from returning. There are a lot of possibilities. Exploring these with grace for our leaders and emphasizing faith in the Lord, the restored gospel, and the order of authority in the church invites a way forward for everyone.
There is no "Greater Good" by lying to the people. No person or church truly serves God if they are doing that. It is not how God works. Satan is the Father of ALL lies. Sure, those that so lie may posture themselves as being men of God and rationalize their lying every which way,, but that only would be a ruse, a cover, a disguise, to obscure a far more sinister agenda. God is a God of Truth that canst not lie, says the Book of Mormon. There is no "wiggle room" about it. "Authority?" They are not telling the truth but instead are lying about Joseph Smith and Polygamy because to tell the truth would be to admit they are not deserving of the authority and dominion they currently have over the ssints. That power and authority is more important to them than is the Truth. Hopefully they will accept the invitation to repent.
There is no "greater good" in being dishonest and untruthful with the people. It is not how God works.
The elephant in the room is the way forward. I don't think just saying "it's a search for truth" is sufficient. Everyone's minds are computing the implications and assigning motives. It's a natural response. The implications have huge sway in their receptiveness to your messages. I think you need to focus a lot more on the practical implications of what you have found and continue to find. I think you could even benefit from going as far as to start every single video with a statement or two about mapping a constructive way forward that the church could follow, which explicitly respects their authority and paints a vision for how to manage small moves toward the best outcome for all involved. The leaders are under enormous pressure to manage the welfare of its millions of members, short term and long term, in a world increasingly hostile to believers in general let alone LDS.
That was the main focus of last week's episode. I do believe there was a way forward, and I hope more people will see that and be willing to exercise their faith toward it.
@@MichelleBStone Yes, that was an excellent discussion. More, please! A panel, even, to really game through the issues as carefully as you do everything else.
No wonder Brigham did not want people to know Joseph supported the Relief Society! I do have some at least indirect connections with Eliza Snow. You were talking about the silence of women before Brigham's power got them. I wonder what reaching out to members of families not currently indoctrinated by ANY group or the group in Utah and investigating this with them from the perspective of their own family history might reveal about some of the people involved in this controversy or purported to be part of this controversy during the lifetime of Joseph Smith might add to the discussion?
Another very interesting discussion. I'm wondering if any of you have studied the life of Lyman Wight. He represents an interesting branch after Joseph Smith. He was with Joseph in Liberty Jail, and went to Wisconsin to float lumber down to Nauvoo, was a member of the twelve Apostles, and Council of 50, so he didn't seem to be a direct part of the Nauvoo drama from 1842 to 1844. He was then was told by Joseph to explore Texas in spring of 1844 after an early delegation received interest from Sam Houston. He ended up taking his Wisconsin Saints to Texas and settled multiple settlements there, building a (small) temple and performing rites with no Garden drama, but including anointings, washing of feet, sealings, and more. Lyman Wight was a polygamist as well (I'm not clear on when he took his first plural wife). This video talks about John Hawley who was a member of Wight's group, came back to the Utah church for many years, and then eventually joined the RLDS church: ua-cam.com/video/exHWOjEj6OM/v-deo.html. In the question of what did Joseph Smith reveal and to whom, Lyman Wight represents an interesting figure. I'd love to see what you know about him, and if you have any other documents worth understanding to get a sense of why he was a polygamist and what temple ceremonies he was performing.
I have read a bit about Lyman Wight. I also read his son's reminiscence, Orange Wight, which was gathered by Church historians -- I believe Andrew Jensen if I'm remembering correctly. He is a very interesting figure. It's been a while since I studied him so I can't remember my conclusions off the top of my head. But he would definitely be someone that would be fascinating to do an episode about.
In some ways, a bit similar to James Strang, just in the sense that both of them became polygamists but were not connected with Brigham Young. It is definitely an interesting angle to explore.
One day we'll all have a better collective understanding. For now some individuals will be able to gain some understanding by revelation to them. It's not all about historical debating.
Why do you think the records from the Nauvoo time period used secret names, initials only, and/or code names to hide what they were doing?
I've NEVER heard MBS address Joseph publicly excoriating young women like Nancy Rigdon who rebuffed his advances either.
It's time for Mormons to admit they are a Reformed Latter-day Saint church. Just disavow everything until David O McKay and move on. Literally EVERY aspect of the origins and history is a problem. Put Joseph's questionable advances to women aside and you've still got problematic scripture, occult folk magic, fraudulent banking, etc. etc.
I love You gals!! I love Joseph Smith and always knew he was GOOD!! To me Joseph Smith was the last real Prophet Seer and revelator. If we beleive this that Joe Smith didn't practice polygamy won't the LDS church come after you as Apostate and Excommunicate you?
Isn't that a crazy question to even have to ask? If we believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and told the truth that our church membership might be in danger? I really hope that isn't the case.
Does any have the reference for the conference talk that Michelle mentions where it is told why we say “brothers and sisters” ?
Orson Hyde
Journal of Discourses Volume 4, pgs 257-258
He starts, "Dear brethren and sisters,"
"Had I copied the style of address adopted by the fashionable world, I might have said, “Ladies and gentlemen,” placing the fair in the van, but as this would only be to reverse the order of our being through life's thorny way, ordained and established by heaven's law, I have felt, and still feel, to observe the spirit of that law and that order, not only in my manner of address, but in all the varied duties, responsibilities, and pleasures of life. The hypocritical respect lavished upon females by the etiquette of the world in pushing them forward, and in exciting their vanity by making them most conspicuous in all the novels and romances which, like so much trash, have flooded society and cursed the land, is only to make them a more easy prey to the unbridled sensuality and the ungodly lusts of their benighted authors. Flattery is food for the silly and shallow brained, but a wise heart and pure hand will never administer it.
The order of heaven places man in the front rank; hence he is first to be addressed. Woman follows under the protection of his counsels, and the superior strength of his arm. Her desire should be unto her husband, and he should rule over her. I will here venture the assertion, that no man can be exalted to a celestial glory in the kingdom of God whose wife rules over him; and as the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord, it follows as a matter of course, that the woman who rules over her husband, thereby deprives herself of a celestial glory."
@@MichelleBStone thank you, Michelle!!♥️
Will you please respond with where in The First Fifty Years I can find the Brigham Young quote about the relief society?
Hi, there is an excerpt of each talk, to the high priests and to the seventies, on the bottom of this page. www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-1/1-13?lang=eng
@@MichelleBStone thank you!! First for your work, and also for your response.
Why is it that the possibility of Brigham's control over the women cannot be considered by the other side? Perhaps because if they considered that possibility, they would have to choose between Brigham's being very different than Joseph or else Josep being a cruel dictator as well. Either way, they have issues. Joseph's policies and statement would not support the latter conclusion, and even if that conclusion could be supported, that makes Joseph Smith and Brigham look more like Warren Jeffs, and then the question is, are Joseph, Brigham, and Warren Jeffs right and the church in apostacy today or is the whole movement wrong altogether?
While focusing on polygamy which i appreciate..i would like a deep dive into the magic and occult ptactices that he practiced and why he tried to sell the book of mormon???.❤
That would all be very interesting. I know. D. Michael Quinn made the case that Joseph was into occult practices. I would like to do more work on that topic. I think it is quite interesting.
What do you mean by trying to sell The Book of Mormon? Do you mean selling copies to people who were interested in reading it? If so, it should be pointed out that missionaries did this until the 1980's when President Benson said that the members should be covering the costs. But maybe you mean something else.
@@CMZIEBARTH I have read many people claim that Joseph tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon. I haven't studied it nearly enough to understand how accurate it may be, or what the potential reasons may have been. I think it would be an interesting topic.
My prediction is that Michell stone will be excommunicated within 2 years.
Badge of Honor!
Is all patriarchy wrong? Do you believe in a righteous patriarchal system?
I think that's a good question. I think that if the male and female are out of balance then it is not correct. The stories as they have been handed down to us tend to focus far more on the masculine than the feminine. I don't know if that is how God intends it. For example, the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. As a mother, I feel that a mother has at least as much claim on her children, who she bore, as her husband does. It is hard for me to see how Abraham was righteous in offering to sacrifice Isaac, apparently without Sarah's consent. We speak of that story often, but almost never includes Sarah in it -- it seems we don't even know how she fits in.
My personal view is that God's warning to Eve in the garden, that man would rule over her, is reflected in much of this telestial existence. I tend to believe that if we want to progress spiritually, we need to be aware of the necessity of the feminine, and not believe that the masculine ruling over the feminine, and the masculine being all present while the feminine is excluded, is acceptable.
I haven't studied Denver snuffer ... But Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow Daybell and her followers were huge fans of Denver snuffer... And they went wacky and killed children in the name of "the Lord" and so is Tim Ballard which I also used to really like, but the more I hear, the more I think he's also fallen.... So I have wanted to stay away from him.
You can’t number the amount of people who have killed innocent people in the name of “Christ”, all self proclaimed “huge fans”
I personally don't think it's fair to attribute crazy people's actions to one person they may have listened to at one point. There are a lot of crazy people everywhere. I have definitely not read everything that Denver snuffer has taught, But I can say with complete confidence from what I have reading for my interactions with him that he never taught anything that would justify any of those kinds of behaviors.
Snuffer might be a bit of a homophobe and too conservative for my tastes. But he is absolutely nothing like Daybell/Vallow. If you read his writings or watch his talks, you will discover that there is nothing in him that would inspire that garbage.
He is all about the Restoration through the prophet Joseph Smith, and refuses to lead any group of people. His insistence the entire time is the people need to walk and talk with God themselves.
"huge fans of Denver Snuffer." Not true at all. Didn't you get one of the points of this discussion? Dishonest people with dishonorable agendas falsely associate good people with known or supposed bad people as a way to maliciously smear and discredit the good guy.
The phrase “huge fans of Denver snuffer” should be immediately discredited just by itself. Based on what Denver Snuffer has himself said publicly, he would disagree with anyone being a “fan” of him. He hasn’t only not asked for “fans” or “followers”, he has actively tried to persuade people to stop following him and heaping adoration of him.
Having said that, I know people who thank the Lord in their prayers for Denver snuffer and have heard public prayers doing that. If such people truly believed Denver had something worth saying, it’s perplexing why they wouldn’t be persuaded when he says he is nothing, and instead elevate him above other people in their hearts.
We surely come from deep traditions of idolatry that need to be shed.
Paul and Peter said and did some things they should not have. As did Brigham and Joseph.
Only Jesus was perfect.
Once you figure out that Joseph messed up in the end but still held the keys as an imperfect person, all the pieces come together.
Do try to keep up. They don't care if Joseph did it, as long as that is what the best evidence proves. It doesn't.
@@JakobPGrau Have you slowly read the Nauvoo Expositor affidavits and compare their summaries of 132 with our 132?
So what if it was a prototype? That still does not make it Joseph Smith's. It just means there were some who were secretly developing the idea with Brigham Young for eventual publication in the D&C.
I thought Phil Davis as preaching polygamy?
Oh! Really? I think I may have heard that, but I I'm not sure what the truth is. That would honestly be fascinating, and maybe not all that surprising. What a weird world!
12 to 20 years AFTER Joseph SUPPOSEDLY had his First Vision isn't very convincing either. And the many DIFFERENT versions?
Have you ever done any research about witness accounts. It's not uncommon to have different versions and more things added. I have told a story of an experience in different situations and included more at one point and focused on a certain part more at a different situation.
I think Trump is Joey Baloney reincarnated.
@@momandithrivingwithbrandis29 Research shows it doesn't work. The book was 2/3 sealed, thus the open section was equal to something like 8 - 20 standard sheets of paper. So the witness accounts, which don't say much, affirm there wasn't enough metal to hold the BoM.
@@momandithrivingwithbrandis29 NOBODY sees God and doesn't tell ANYONE or write it down for over a dozen years and 2 years AFTER starting the church. And you wouldn't confuse an angel, God, or God AND Jesus together.
Who cares? Try bringing an actual issue.
Who is Phil Davis? Does he have a UA-cam channel?
I don't know if he has a channel. I believe he claimed to have an experience with the Lord and sort of set himself up as a teacher. I think he had a bit of a following before a painfully embarrassing fall from grace. It was all very bizarre. He may still have some followers, but I'm not sure.
How is this not ad hominem? I know you are frustrated, and have justifiable reason to be angry. But if you want the historical community to take you seriously, going after a young graduate student (who is in a highly vulnerable and precarious position) is not the way to do it.
Ad Hominem is making personal attacks against a person. That didn't happen at all. I admit, I was quite critical of Brooke's arguments (which I think need to be criticized) but I did not criticize Brooke personally in any way. I would have far preferred to talk directly to Brooke rather than about her, but she didn't respond to the emails I sent her, which I think is unfortunate.
I admit that I’m feeling a bit defensive given that I work with grad students on a daily basis. You did a fine job focusing on the specifics of the arguments (even if I felt like you at times misunderstood Brooke’s larger point or the framework from which she is approaching the issue), but the panelists frequently made unsubstantiated assumptions about Brooke (esp about her faith or position in academia) that call into question her integrity and intelligence. I have a hard time not seeing that as an attack on her character.
And to be clear, I agree that a lot of the attacks on you have been unfair and downright disgusting. The mormon land podcast clearly missed the mark and needed to be called out. It wasn’t an accurate depiction of you or this “movement” (not sure how you feel about calling it a movement?). But these response videos have been filled with just as much misunderstanding and conjecture.
@@wtswingle I wish we could have more conversations. I wish Brooke had responded to my emails. I would loved to be able to talk about these things with her. It is extremely frustrating to have academics use the status of their degrees to make claims, but then be unwilling to engage to defend their claims, especially when they seem so problematic. I of course want to learn how to engage in the best ways, and I am constantly trying to improve. So I appreciate the feedback and I will keep trying to do better. I'm just honestly not sure of what actually is the best approach, and of what we should do with this genuine frustration we experience.
@@MichelleBStone It seems the Mormon studies community has a particularly tense relationship with social media and podcasting. They have been burned so many times that it’s hard to know who to trust or who is worth engaging. I appreciate your willingness to try and I hope more people are willing to talk with you both online and offline. The other thing to note is that academics are almost always speaking within a certain historiographical context that makes no sense to outsiders (and even insiders tbh). This results is a lot of misunderstandings and assumptions that don’t really contribute to mutual understanding. Social media seems to only amplify this.
00:58:38 THIS is the church you're fighting to stay in? I can't believe there hasn't been church discipline for this, but why give them that option and power over you? Just leave Brighamite Mormonism already.
11:54 I’m sorry but JS was speaking against it but he was doing it. Actually he was sealed in the Templo with another woman or more than one rather than his own wife! But I understand your point because I was in same position when I was LDS believer. I’m still member but the doctrine doesn’t have any evidence of it is true besides feelings 😢
Can you expand on your claim that Joseph was sealed in the temple?
Joseph Smith never really knew an LDS Temple. He knew a Church in Ohio (there was no LDS then). Temples were not really an LDS thing until Joseph became a Mason. The Nauvoo Temple was built by Brigham, however he could have been sealed in a Temple because the LDS have such a practice. Martha Brotherton is a good reference, she was sealed to Brigham in a Temple after her death. And that sealing is very important for many reasons. It is likely Brigham did seal many of Joseph's wives in the Temple but I have never seen any such record. The wives say the marriages occurred in homes, and were to be kept secret until the LDS left the US and moved to the Rocky Mountains.
The LDS Church being started by Joseph Smith depends on polygamy starting with Joseph Smith. That is why the LDS Church claims that Joseph Smith was simply lying when he said he never was a polygamist. Joseph Smith actually was telling the truth.
@@MichelleBStone well at the time they do not have a templo a physical one but the had the instructions “from God” todo that.
@@whatsup3270 he dos not knowing a physical one but he knows the tips because he was “inspired “from free Masons God😉
If Joseph was a polygamist, he would have had children with his plural wives. Because there are no children other than to Emma it is reasonable proof that he was not. If those who insist that he started polygamy, must also ask this same question. Where are the children? Then there must be an even larger concern. Was abortion a practice in those days? Would Joseph have insisted his wives abort pregnancies in order to cover up his adulterous practices? Fair question if you are in the camp that Joseph practiced plural marriage.
That is actually the topic of my jwha presentation!
Bennet claimed he performed abortions whenever “Joseph got one of his girls in trouble.” This was on FAIR Mormon and the account was discredited because the woman he told that to was against polygamy and both were considered too anti to be credible. I forget who the woman was but it was on that site which is now called something else since “Mormon” was no longer an approved term to use. I’ve studied polygamy for over 45 years. If an account is negative, it’s not credible. If it’s positive, it counts even if it’s decades later. Imagine Joseph having babies aborted to protect himself when in the modern day, the church is very anti-abortion….how could the current church explain such a terrible thing about the founder of LDSism? It would be harder to justify by far than if Joseph was never a polygamist.
I feel I have extremely solid evidence to show that Bennett was absolutely not performing abortions for Joseph Smith or anybody else. I am familiar with all of the sources that claim he was performing abortions. I take those all into account in my research and conclusions.
@@MichelleBStone so happy to hear this! Thanks Michelle.
@@MichelleBStoneif you’re having the strong evidence could you show it! Or it’s just a feeling like we know the church is true!
Of course all is not well, with wolves in the fold like you.
Joseph Smith's polygamy was more coverup than classic polygamy. Brigham made polygamy official to end adultery. For example Fanny Alger was sealed years after she LAST SAW Joseph. So Fanny is officially sealed to cover up the relationship she had with Joseph years, yes years later. Similarly Brigham made a tactical error in 1870 when he had the deceased Martha Brotherton Sealed to him. That action confirmed the LDS leaders has smeared her, and the implications of that are huge given what they said.
Slander. Libel. You have ZERO evidence Fanny and Joseph did anything at all.
@@JakobPGrau See Jakob that is the problem, we have the infamous "saw the transaction", we have the Oliver Cowdry excommunication rooted in the relationship of Fanny and Joseph. We also have the famous claim all of Joseph's sins were forgiven and Joseph was allowed to do all except spill innocent blood. This of course IMPLIES Joseph needed both forgiveness and access to sins.
My head is spinning listening to this. You’re talking about Eliza Snow and Wilford Wordruff etc. signing the declaration set forth by Joseph Smith that the church only teaches one wife, monogamous marriage, but then for whatever reason they start engaging in polygamy later on after Joseph died and Eliza even went so far as to tell the most egregious lie of all and say she was actually married to JS herself… You say they were the good guys telling the truth when JS was alive but then they became a bunch of lying manipulators later on… If they knew first hand from their beloved prophet Joseph Smith himself that polygamy was an abomination and was not from god then why would they allow themselves to be so deceived immediately after he dies. You say you really believe they were telling the truth at that time when they signed that document and then they soon after became liars. I really want to hear what you’re saying and believe that you are being unbiased in your research but if this isn’t motivated reasoning I don’t know what is. The double standards in your research seem stark. In any other situation you would call these people unreliable sources who can’t be trusted, but here in this situation you’re going to insert your preferred narrative and say that you know for sure these people were once the good guys and were for sure telling the truth when Joseph was alive but then they immediately became the enemy and intentionally lied about Joseph’s polygamy for whatever personal gain they sought right after he dies.
I think you are making a very big deal of a very small point. We are saying they are unreliable witnesses. That was the entire point of showing their contrasting testimonies. I simply said off hand that I thought they were possibly telling the truth in Nauvoo (when they weren't facing anything like the same restraints and controls as they would for decades in Utah before they came out with their alternate story.) That makes sense to me, but it isn't anything like an essential part of the narrative. It was just a hunch that I found interesting, and logical, especially since the only person they would have been married to at this point was Joseph -- which they weren't -- so they weren't actually engaging in polygamy at that point. If you disagree, that's fine. I'm not sure why it is such a big deal to you.
@@MichelleBStone it’s a big deal because you constantly talk about this declaration Joseph made of one husband and but one wife. Here we have people who signed that statement saying they attest that no polygamy was being taught and practiced and then almost immediately after Joseph dies they abandon it. Your conclusion is you know Eliza and Wilford were telling the truth when they signed that statement endorsing monogamy and then all of a sudden they become liars. These people didn’t have to go to Utah with Brigham. They went with him because they supported him and it seems to me they went with him because they agreed with polygamy. Many people stayed behind because they disagreed with Brigham.
@@jessicathurston6494 Again, I didn't say I know they were telling the truth. You seem to insist on that incorrect understanding of what I said. I think many people became convinced by Brigham and others after Joseph's death that Joseph had been a polygamist. I think others were likely committed to the doctrine and thought Joseph was wrong. Also, the people who later contradicted themselves didn't do so until decades later. Many people followed Brigham who had no idea about polygamy. Remember, it wasn't taught publicly until 1852. Of all the information in this presentation, it is very strange to me that this seems so important to you. I just don't see it.
@@MichelleBStone You say polygamy wasn’t taught publicly until 1852. These people weren’t dumb. They knew it was going on. I’ve read sources of people whispering about it and knowing that certain women were married polygamously to certain men and that babies were being born to young women who were married polygamously to the leaders. The people knew it was going on yet they still joined with Brigham and went west. Sorry, I couldn’t listen to the rest of the video. Maybe later. It’s frustrating because I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and I’m interested in the work you’re doing. But it seems so obvious to me that you ladies are engaging in major motivated reasoning, even though you say you’re not. Like when I heard Whitney say on another podcast that she thinks Fanny Alger seduced Joseph Smith 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
@@jessicathurston6494 I haven't ever heard her say that. And I don't think that. I still think this is a really strange point of contention. You are also making way too broad of assumptions about all the people knowing about it. The polygamists were doing all they could to keep it secret in Nauvoo. The sources make that very clear.
Another episode bashing on the historians? Michelle - your content is much more interesting when you are diving into the sources rather then complaining about the historians.
The intent is not to bash on historians, but I personally think it is worthwhile to respond to the claims historians make. They are seen as the experts and the authorities. Engaging their arguments seems like a worthwhile endeavor.
Michelle is the most patient person!! Dishonest people need to be called out especially when they're straight up lying, deceiving and leading people astray.
The so called historians have set themselves up as self proclaimed prophets.
Love you ladies and all the work you do! I pray daily for your protection and strength. 🤍 You’re doing a great work that I feel needs to be in place for us to become a Zion people. It’s so awesome to see more and more come to the truth about polygamy.