The amount of mental gymnastics that I just went through watching this video is absolutely exhausting. “Nowhere in your incoherent ramblings did you answer the questions given. We are all dumber for having listened to you and may God have mercy upon your soul” is what I was thinking the whole time (line from Billy Madison) 😂
To quote Brad Wilcox, the question you really should be asking is why are you still a member of a church that you disagree with and considers the question of Joseph's polygamy a closed case?
@@sdfotodude I’m actually no longer a member of whatever church this is, whatever god you worship; the loving Heavenly Father I worship does not condone such abominations and actually warns us of such in the scriptures. Maybe turn to the scriptures brother @sdfotodude than put your faith in the arm of flesh (another warning the Lord lists off in the BofM might I add). God bless you on your journey. I am by far not perfect, but He has told me that it is by far not and has never been in His nature to put his fair daughters and loving sons through such iniquity. It is not in His nature. The brethren SAY they condemn this vile act, but why continue with the theme that God has once commanded it before, He may command it again? It’s nowhere in the scriptures and no other faith believes this of God but the LDS alone. Maybe ponder on that a moment. I pray you come to know that for yourself one day. 🙏🏼
@bettydial-v7x don't bother praying for me ma'am I'm an atheist. But it does make you wonder why Joseph created a loophole for himself and his buddies. If you don't mind my asking what kind of church do you attend now?
Thanks for sharing this fireside. It is amazing to me that every time the church has a Q&A to "answers questions," it turns out to be nothing more than mocking those who have questions about the official approved narrative. No longer surprising, but still sad.
Well, I’m not sure if he is a master, it feels very immature to me, but I also agree with what you’re saying. This isn’t only historical malpractice, this is intentional historical manipulation.
D&C 101 and Joseph saying he had only one wife is NOT a carefully worded denial. And the Voice of Innocence specifically mentions polygamy as did some of Hyrum's denials if I remember correctly. God never used polygamy to raise up seed. He used commandments to raise up righteous see or seed unto himself.
Not entirely honest about polygamy. Saying the saints knew it was a temporary commandment is misleading. That is not what was taught. What was taught was that you had to be a polygamist to get into the celestial kingdom, and that this would never again be removed from the earth. I actually dont have a problem with consenting adults entering into a polygamist relationship. They should have that right. But what was taught was not that this is temporary, but instead the most righteous of all of gods commandments and it must be practiced in order to enter into the celestial kingdom.
That's disgusting! God tells us in Scripture that the bad guys change the everlasting covenant. Brigham changed it to polygamy, and those that followed Brigham were from then on deceived and didn't bother to SEARCH the scriptures for what the real everlasting covenant always was and is.
@@FightTheFire32 So was the line of the priesthood was forever broken and thus shouldn't you all belong to Emma's church instead? The Community of Christ has a Female Prophetess.
@sdfotodude You still think God's authority needs to be given by a man. Sad. It has always been God's to give to whomever He will, and it always will be. Unless you're one of those who believe that God "hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men"...? None of the Mormon splinter groups have God's authority, but looking for a church that has it is missing the point. We aren't supposed to rely on the arm of flesh, but on God directly, without any intermediaries. I've seen your other comments here, so I have little confidence that you'll let my words - or anyone else's - sink in, but when you finally do awake to a sense of your awful situation, whether in this life or the next, I hope you'll remember the many warnings and patient responses here and elsewhere to your prideful trolling.
Ok, I finally plowed through this carnage of a fireside. This is one of the best we have to represent church history? Look, I know the guy is a husband and father. He is educated and making a living working for the church. He may be a good guy as a neighbor, but I feel so blessed I do not have to sustain this strange man for anything that has to do with me. Bless his heart!
He says that women should not be concerned with being required to practice polygamy. He dismisses it as believing "folk tales". Perhaps because it's still being practiced in our temples?
I attended in person and found his rephrasing of historical doctrine offensive and apostate. I submitted the question about whether polygamy was implemented to raise up children and where is marrying other men’s wives taught in scripture. It was hilarious to hear him try to talk around the subject and try to give reasons to fill in the gaps after he taught that filling in the gaps is wrong to do. He confirmed that the church doesn’t even believe in D&C 132 scripture. The new church is whatever you want to make it to fit your life.
I was excited with what he was saying at first but after forcing myself to finish it I feel sick. I could say so much. He is asking for me to be humble but I'm having a hard time seeing his humility making jokes and making light of peoples real questions? I feel so yucky and confused. I want this to not be real. He is ignoring so much history and not giving sources, dates, etc for the points he is making.
Pure sophistry! This is so bad! We know Joseph was a polygamist because of D&C 132 (which was introduced 8 years after his death)! K, what about the scripture that said that the church is NOT TO PRACTICE polygamy which was published many times during his lifetime?? He loses.
Yet, it was introduced by Joseph 8 years before his death. Pretty sure he didn't write it down because it was illegal and immoral. And led to his eventual demise.
@@sdfotodude " ...it was introduced by Joseph 8 years before his death. Pretty sure he didn't write it down because it was illegal and immoral" What's your source?
If the history department isn’t hiding things, then PUBLISH the MANY times Joseph fought against polygamy and let the saints judge for themselves if these are “carefully worded denial”. Seriously this guy is the absolute worst.
Brother, why was section CI removed from our Scriptures? Also why did you mock those who believe the shroud of Turin is real? I don't know anyone who believes it is "magical". Isn't that the same slur used against Saints who wear garments? Matthew 9:26-27 I find this man to use smugness and belittling to emotionally manipulate people. I don't recall Christ ever doing that.
The way he calls people finding out information from church history “prideful” while he stands there shaming them in the most prideful way. Look in the mirror dude. Look in the mirror. I seriously feel like I’m being gaslit by a cult leader. I’m about 48 minutes in so far.
"And in the fifty and first year of the reign of the judges there was peace also, save it were the pride which began to enter into the church-not into the church of God, but into the hearts of the people who *professed* to belong to the church of God-and they were lifted up in pride, even to the persecution of many of their brethren. Now this was a great evil, which did cause the more humble part of the people to *suffer great persecutions, and to wade through much affliction."* - Helaman 3: 33-34 (Be sure to look up verse 35, too. 😉)
Michelle At first I wasn’t sure why you posted this video because of his stances on certain topics. BUT…. After listening to him I know why you did. His Rambling and Mental gymnastics is unreal. How can even a TBM listen to him and not walk away scratching their head feeling gaslit? Honestly it’s not Anti or Ex Mormons who cast doubt. It’s historians or apologists like this that cause the damage. He talked soooo much, but didn’t actually say ANYTHING!!
That was my exact observation. It was a waste of time. He brought nothing new to the table and I feel like he does not know what he's talking about. Why assign him this job? He doesn't know what he speaks.
I'm still only in the introduction. I like how he calls us not to think so much in binary. But I'm disappointed with his understanding of his own example of Jesus being asked about paying tribute to Caesar. If he can't be bothered for more information and activating his thinking skills with his own introductory example, this doesn't bode well for the rest of his presentation. Let me point you to some more information, Mr. Erekson, about Caesar's coin and tribute. Context is important. Where is something said and to who? Jesus was come into the temple and was approached by chief priests and elders (Matt. 21:23). He's asked about paying taxes to a man who claims to be a God. He asks for a coin. Why does he need a coin to answer the question? There is an image of Caesar on the coin. Why is this image important? He's standing in the temple looking at a graven image of a man, who was said by Romans to be a God. What's this graven image of a false God doing in the temple? What a shameful thing for the chief priests and elders to do. And then the answer: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. He's still in the temple, still speaking to supposed experts of scripture. There are plenty of verses in the "law and the prophets" about how all things belong to God. And here in the temple you can be sure Jesus phrased his answer in a way to allude to at least one they all knew by heart. Now, with this information, activate those thinking skills and please come up with a better understanding of Jesus' answer to mean both, which is a pretty poor answer, if you ask me. If you truly believe in God, you will understand that everything belongs to God, and nothing belongs to Caesar, who is not a God. But if you don't believe in God, like the Romans, you will understand, that Jesus clearly said to give to Caesar all he asks for, because clearly everything belongs to Caesar as the supreme and divine ruler of the roman empire. Jesus taught a clear lesson, putting the chief priests and elders to shame, without the possibility of using his answer against Him. Maybe we would be better at putting God first in our lives, if we stop believing that Jesus in any way condoned or even supported the rule of Caesar or maybe even the rule any man or government. Also Mr. Erekson's understanding of the woman caught in adultery is pretty standard and therefore uninspiring and in my opinion wrong. Maybe look a bit deeper in your examples or choose some that illustrate how the simple answers handed down from our fathers are sometimes wrong and keep us from finding and accepting truth. EDIT: Now I watched way more than is probably good for me. I'm at 1:05h and can't continue. The lack of humility, the I-know-it-all-and-you-don't attitude, is something I don't put up with anymore. When it serves him, it's all about putting things in context in way that suits him. When it doesn't serve him, context and details seem to be irrelevant, just like in his opening example of paying tribute to Caesar. Please be aware of people who lack humility. They have stopped learning - and possibly a long time ago!
He just makes a "sum-up" of all the angles of naysayers but does not clear up one thing. He even comes up with things that no Numo thinks, just what TBM's think they think. So ridiculous. He's a total waste of time. What a sorry excuse of a teacher. Nothing here. No new information to help a learner on their path of truth.
"Brother Erekson, why did the church lie about how Joseph translated the BoM using a hat in a rock and why did they keep that rock hidden away for 180 years?"
I would suggest that you look at the sources that talk about the translation of the BofM and you might be surprised that the stone in a hat theory is not well supported at all by the best and contemporary evidence. For those who believe in the stone in a hat theory, I would ask, why don't you believe what Joseph himself said about it? 100% of all of the sources linked to Joseph support the Urim and Thummim (the spectacles) and not the stone in a hat. 100% of the sources from Olver also support the U&T. The scriptures themselves (BofM and D&C) support the U&T. The Lord, JS, and Oliver all 100% support the U&T, not the stone in a hat. Emma is a bit more complicated and beyond the scope of this comment but I will just say some of the sources support the U&T and some the seer stone, but those sources are very interesting to look at and lean more toward the U&T than a seer stone. The vast majority of the sources for Martin Harris support the U&T, except for two late sources which are problematic. The earliest sources for David Whitmer support the U&T. The other ones of his support the seer stone, but they are all very very very late and he wasn't a scribe of the BofM. All of the sources for William Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith Sr., Katherine Smith, Joseph Knight, Elizabeth Whitmer, the earliest newspaper accounts and many others all support the U&T and not the seer stone. The vast majority of the people who said Joseph used a seer stone in a hat were his enemies, not scribes, apostates, people confused, and people misinterpreting the evidence. Joseph was not allowed to show the U&T to others (Lucy Mack was an exception). It is not hard to see why people thought it was a stone put in a hat. The U&T was described as "stone spectacles". When people heard "stone" they assumed a rock. Joseph couldn't show them the spectacles. How could Joseph wear spectacles for translation and yet not show them to the scribes. You put the glasses in a hat and then put your face in the hat wearing the spectacles. There is much much more that could be said about this, including the "rock" that the LDS church claims is from Joseph Smith. But ultimately look at the evidence from Joseph Smith himself and ask yourself if you believe him or not.
I would suggest that people look directly at the sources that talk about the translation of the BofM and one might be surprised that the stone in a hat theory is not well supported at all by the best and contemporary evidence. For those who believe in the stone in a hat theory, ask why doesn't the sources by Joseph and Oliver support it? 100% of all of the sources linked to Joseph support the Urim and Thummim (the spectacles) and not the stone in a hat. 100% of the sources from Olver also support the U&T. The scriptures themselves (BofM and D&C) support the U&T. The Lord, JS, and Oliver all 100% support the U&T, not the stone in a hat. Emma is a bit more complicated and beyond the scope of this comment but I will just say some of the sources support the U&T and some the seer stone, but those sources are very interesting to look at and lean more toward the U&T than a seer stone. The vast majority of the sources for Martin Harris support the U&T, except for two late sources which are problematic. The earliest sources for David Whitmer support the U&T. The other ones of his support the seer stone, but they are all very very very late and he wasn't a scribe of the BofM. All of the sources for William Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith Sr., Katherine Smith, Joseph Knight, Elizabeth Whitmer, the earliest newspaper accounts and many others all support the U&T and not the seer stone. The vast majority of the people who said Joseph used a seer stone in a hat were his enemies, not scribes, apostates, people confused, and people misinterpreting the evidence. Joseph was not allowed to show the U&T to others (Lucy Mack was an exception). It is not hard to see why people thought it was a stone put in a hat. The U&T was described as "stone spectacles". When people heard "stone" they assumed a rock. Joseph was told not to show them the spectacles. How could Joseph wear spectacles for translation and yet not show them to the scribes? He could have put glasses in a hat and then put his face in the hat which would have allowed him to wear the spectacles. There is much much more that could be said about this, including the supposed "rock" that people claim came from Joseph. Ultimately, look at what the sources say from the scriptures and from Joseph, and ask if you believe them or not?
Urim and Thummim came with the plates. Joseph and Oliver ONLY spoke of that being used. All others did not witness anything, just hearsay. No rock was used in translation. You ramble every Sunday about nothing.
The stone in a hat theory is not supported well at all by the best and contemporary evidence. 100% of all of the sources linked to Joseph support the Urim and Thummim (the spectacles) and not the stone in a hat. 100% of the sources from Olver also support the U&T. The scriptures themselves (BofM and D&C) support the U&T. The Lord, JS, and Oliver all 100% support the U&T, not the stone in a hat. Emma is a bit more complicated and beyond the scope of this comment but I will just say some of the sources support the U&T and some the seer stone, but those sources are very interesting to look at and lean more toward the U&T than a seer stone with careful analysis and context. The vast majority of the sources for Martin Harris support the U&T, except for basically two late sources which are problematic. The earliest sources for David Whitmer support the U&T. The other ones of his support the seer stone, but they are all very very late and he wasn't a scribe of the BofM. All of the sources for William Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith Sr., Katherine Smith, Joseph Knight, Elizabeth Whitmer, the earliest newspaper accounts and many others all support the U&T and not the seer stone. The vast majority of the people who said Joseph used a seer stone in a hat were his enemies, not scribes, apostates, people confused or influenced by others, and people misinterpreting the evidence. Joseph was not allowed to show the U&T to others (Lucy Mack was an exception). It is not hard to see why people thought it was a stone put in a hat. The U&T was described as "stone spectacles". When people heard "stone" they may have assumed just one rock. Joseph couldn't show them the spectacles. How could Joseph wear spectacles for translation and yet not show them to the scribes. You put the glasses in a hat and then put your face in the hat wearing the spectacles. There is much much more that could be said about this, including about the "rock" that the LDS church claims came from Joseph. But ask if you believe Joseph and the scriptures in regards to the translation or not?
@sdfotodude "Brother Erekson, why did the church lie about how Joseph translated the BoM using a hat in a rock and why did they keep that rock hidden away for 180 years?" Good question, and why are they lying about Joseph being a polygamist?
This “historian” has done more damage to the restored gospel, than John Dehlin and Denver Snuffer combined. But he repeats the narrative so he can keep his job. All is well in Zion. Shame!
I made a comment on one of Brian Hales videos that he didn't like. I said "Brother Hales you charged the prophet Joseph Smith with the crime of polygamy, found him guilty and you never allowed him to defend himself"
Women these days are not paid less than men to do the exact same job with the same qualifications; may have been true in the past but it would be a foolish company indeed that would openly do so and keep a record of it. Perhaps he is referring to Church employment policies 🤔
2:07:35 “After Joseph and Oliver were ordained, there has never been another angelic ordination.” Or, to editorialize as he likes to do, “Angelic ordinations were done in the days of Joseph Smith, and there will never be any more of them. God doesn’t do that anymore, He did His work; He’s given His power unto men now! So if you hear about miracles being done, believe it not!” So wild to basically hear that one, of all verses, being taught over the pulpit.
The Gospel Topic Essays talking about polygamy raise more questions than answers. Where are the children that Joseph had with his plural wives? Why didn't Joseph have section 101 on monogamist marriage removed from the D&C and it replaced with section 132? Why did it take 32 years after Joseph death to have section 132 included in the D&C? Where did God tell him to pratice polygamy in secret and lie about it in public?
14:32 I’m just going to make a few notes here because this is amazing! I sure wish I’d gotten this lesson a looooong time ago in the church. I learned, on my own, about binary thinking, critical thinking and complexity. If it weren’t for Thomas McConkie I’d still be a zealous believer in the church. How many others like myself still see the world in black and white. 16:42 Yet that absolute right and wrong is what we read in scripture and has been the narrative and perception through out the majority of time in Mormon existence. 27:44 Clearly, as an active lifelong believing member of the church who has been in nearly every leadership position in the church and whose hobby scripture and gospel study. I feel confident that I have been taught truth and have been dealt with honestly. No?? I’ve only been taught a narrative that top leadership and correlation committee believe are faith promoting. 😮 That’s a problem. 28:52 what if ones study and learning teaches us something new that’s contrary to what we’ve been taught in the church? These example are b.s. You know what happens to those who study and find contrary or expaned version of church history. That same Russel M Nelson then calls us, “Lazy learners and lax disciples.”😕 The humor is cute and the condescending tone and assumption’s are THICK! 1:20:25 polygamy is a huge, messy and ongoing topic and problem in the church because Joseph Smith and his character are all wrapped up in it. Either He was an honest trust worthy man and prophet of God in this last dispensation of time, who could be relied upon as a trustworthy leader. Or he was not. I’d love to hear Bro. Erickson nuance that for us. 1:35:08 Now you want to talk about Joseph being called to repentance many times by the Lord. Okay. But I find it strange that Josephs original intention for seeking the Lord to in prayer was to receive forgiveness of sin but that was not included in the canonized version of the the first vision. What?! The problem with apologetics is this. Any topic can be addressed and manipulated to make sense in isolation but those adjustments and manipulations to one topic affect all the surrounding topics but we aren’t allowed to follow the dominos, we’re to be content with the one issue that was nuanced. 😩 It’s defys logic and reason, two things the Lord doesn’t seem to care much for. 1:35:23 No one claims that Prophets are perfect and make no mistakes. Of course we know they screw up their taxes, yell at their kids, maybe procrastinate teaching uncomfortable things. What we believe was what we were taught, that the Lord will not allow a prophet to lead the church astray. Which is only focusing on prophetic teachings. If we can’t rely on a prophet to teaching and speak the word of God, what good are they? 1:45:24 So black folks not being allowed to hold the priesthood or participate in the saving work of the Temple, -was just a guy filling the gaps? Really? That makes God look extremely inept, cruel to not straighten things out and instead allow good people to suffer in his restored gospel? God himself allowing unrighteous dominion in his restored church. If Joseph Smith was able to find, hide and translate ancient records into the BOM via the gift and power of God. Then why would those same spiritual gifts “mantal” not follow with the succeeding prophets? Why should we not be right in trusting and following that the prophet trusting that he would be directed to know truth from err etc? 1:46:17 one thing that I can confidently say I was never taught in the LDS faith it was that! To say, “I don’t know”. In fact I was taught to begin any testimony with, “I know”. Nice try but you cannot just throw this at people who’ve been righteously doing what they were taught to do. There’s a learning curve and it also requires leadership to come in with humility and patience. 1:47:39 I know that I was asked to not bear my testimony if I continued to start with “I believe” or “I hope”. I know, I know, that was just my bishop doing his best to follow incorrect teaching he got from his leaders who got it from their imperfect leaders who…. 😮💨
It does start out pretty good -- but it is amazing how quickly it descends into unbelievably bad sophistry and apologetics. I was truly astounded by the arrogance, and the blatant dishonesty. By the end, I could barely believe what I had heard.
@@MichelleBStone I am glad you clarified this--I had some curiosities. I would agree on the sophistry. This lecture actually brought to mind Lycophron a Greek sophist who was thought, by many, to be an early social contract thinker. In many ways, we can look at what was said in this lecture in purest of sophist means of "knowledge is a communion of knowledge and of soul" which takes me to "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2nd Timothy, 4:3-4, KJV).
Who’s going to tell the Stake Pres that he can listen, hear and learn from Bro. Erickson without having to literally keep his eyes on the back of his head. 😂 Kinda creepy.
42:54 Michelle, I just can’t. I’m so sorry you take the brunt of this condescending BS. Even the smallest amount of institutional humility would go a long way. Also, why send Bro Erickson to do the job of setting the saints straight? Why not send someone with keys and authority? Who’s really in charge here?
He exposed himself and what many church historians do by saying we have to be creative and imagine how things may have been and then look for the evidence to back it up. They seek out a certain narrative and discard what doesn’t fit their story at the expense of being factually and historically accurate.
Exactly. He's not looking for evidence, he's looking to confirm what he already believes. That's not how the Scientific Method works, so he should not be taken seriously by anyone.
@@MrFishwalker The church changed the teachings about blacks not having the priesthood, The church doesn't teach blood atonement anymore and Brigham's teachings that Adam was God has been done away with. All it needs to do is admit that Brigham made a mistake in introducing polygamy and they can distance themselves from it, like they have done with his other claimed doctrines. The church can survive, all it has to do is to be honest when dealing with it's problematic history. As you say "the gospel isn't the church". We should not be worshipping the leaders.
@@SeekTruth-f6d You mentioned a few noteworthy examples, but there's so much more. Some of the core theologies in the church need changing, as well as the temple endowment. I would say top to bottom needs an overhaul. Personally, I think the longest-held teaching in the church that needs to be struck from the records is that the "prophet can never lead you astray." This was introduced by Brigham and regurgitated by every leader since then. This false precept makes lesser gods of men and breaks the first of ten commandments. It's also the one core teaching that must be addressed because if we can never question a leader, nothing will ever change. The Law of Common Consent (by the people) must be reinstated over the draconian mind-control practice of "sustaining."
@MrFishwalker No. I mean the the Mormon Gospel, taught after Joseph Smith died. The teachings of the church, the temple ordinances, the word of wisdom, the blacks and the priesthood, tithing, etc...
They preach prophets can see around corners, yet they can't fill in gaps of history? Prophets and apostles for 150 years perpetuated "the seed of Cain" temple ban. I guess it's true until it isn't.
Only 49 minutes in and so far my feelings on what he's been sharing have been mixed... like trying to appease both sides is a good thing... i dunno...I keep waiting for a spontaneous response from someone in the audience...I can't wait to hear Michelle's take on this 🙏
This was the most twisted, uncomfortable, completely lacking the spirit, message, I have ever heard. He's oddly defensive, spewing with hubris, arrogance and sadly, embarrassingly wrong and incorrect with his " evidence, " info, so sad. I TRUST JOSEPH. So should he. This is cringy, and makes me incredibly sad to still feel such disappointment and distrust 8n leadership.
By the way, thanks for posting this in its entirety! I’m listening to it before I start your discussion on it, and I’m glad to have the full context (which I hear is important for understanding this topic, lol) before I start in on your dissection o7
Brother Erekson, couldn't Joseph have "sealed" himself to everyone all at once rather than select children and other men's wives behind Emma's back. And why resort to denying it to the flock?"
We will never know the truth about this because the polygamists changed things to tie Joseph to polygamy so as to justify their own abominable evil practice of polygamy.
Here’s what made my ears bleed as I listened to this man… When an academic, leaning so heavily on their intellectual superiority proven by their diploma more than their reasoning, has the nerve to lecture others on their “poor reasoning”, and do so using a litany of every logical fallacy in the book (ad hominem, appeal to authority, presupposition, etc) it really gets my hackles up. Binary questions *really* bother this guy. Newsflash…just because a question is binary, doesn’t make it wrong…and you *aren’t* the Savior. So here’s one more binary question, and if answered to my satisfaction, I’ll be in Sacrament Meeting next week… Which of the prophets are liars?!? - Brigham Young, with his laundry list of demonstrably false doctrines that have been disavowed by the church…several of which (including polygamy) that he tried to add legitimacy to by citing a conveniently revealed private conversation he had with Joseph, but not until after his death? - Or Joseph and Hyrum’s many very public and contemporaneous condemnations of polygamists and their practices…with a dash of Gordon B Hinckley’s nationally televised interview in which he “condemned the practice” and said that it was “NOT DOCTRINAL”? Who was lying? Because it is an absolute truism that someone was.
Not convincing at all, same old, same old - I made notes and time stamps to challenge what he said, want to counter my own bias, I found him so dismissive of other peoples motives. I could write forever but one small point when was talking about the WoW, the members couldn't handle it or leaders? Didn't B Young have a vineyard and a distillery? Didn't B Young divert goods of which his whiskey was contained, whilst people were on the plains? Didn't Heber J Grant drink beer (6 glasses a day I believe) to put weight on, but after all it was only a commandment from the Lord so we will put it off until people will obey, oh wait, it wasn't a commandment but we will make it one to go to the Temple. BTW I liked the video, not because I liked the video but because I appreciate you sharing it. He did get one thing correct, Church Historians are certainly creative.
Testimonies and gospel knowledge of sentient human beings tend to follow a familiar pattern with three phases: the Garden of Eden, the Fall, and the Atonement. Bro. Erekson seems to be stuck in the Garden of Eden, where everything is rainbows and unicorns. One wonders what causes this kind of arrested development that evolves into such a degree of sarcasm and arrogance.
Key to the church building! That’s more functional than all the keys in the quorum of the 12 combined! Don’t belittle church keys! They can actually unlock something!
It is unfortunate that brother Erickson isn’t clear what Section 132 is about. I don’t remember if he described the provenance of the letter. Also, why would Emma be fearful of monogamous eternal marriage. She had to be threatened with destruction to follow the new law of eternal monogamy?
If one opens the transcript and puts the video on pause, take 5 minutes and read what he is saying at any given place verses listening. He is putting on a show. He has no clue what he is doing and has not idea what he is talking about. This is a man who is seeking approval. Imagine his poor spouse and what he must suffer from this guy.
I couldn’t even finish this! This is exactly the problem, these people calling themselves historians, and attacking those who have studied the evidence and discovered different conclusions. Gag me. His approach is so offensive.
If there ever was a time for men and women to apply James 1:5-8 as the Prophet Joseph did, it is now! The world and LDS Church today are in worse shape than in the days of Joseph Smith. The "restoration" of truth is alive today in the hearts of the honest, true, and chase [13th Article of Faith]; It is a spiritual gathering and it will continue until the Lord comes.
@sdfotodude "Brother Erekson, since your income depends on the church, what would you change about the church, and would you be afraid to say that out loud?" Why would he answer a question like that?
@@SeekTruth-f6d OK, how about I rephrase the question. Bro E why has the church lied about its history so often and allowed its members to teach something they clearly knew was wrong?
@@sdfotodude Like I said, "why would he answer a question like that?". Why do you think the church lied about its history? Why do you think they lied about Joseph Smith introducing and practicing polygamy?
Oh man, he really is spiritually blinded. He tries to lay a foundation of discipleship in Christ to sweeten up his sour words. He then proceeds to speak void of the spirit of God and just appeal to his own expertise and those before him. He is the epitomy of what Christ called liars and hypocrites. Of course the scribes and Pharisees would interject saying, "We didn't lie. How are we hypocrites?" They throw shade on God himself calling Him a liar of his judgements upon and prophecy about them. We've seen these types before in scripture. We know what God says about them. Do we actually believe what we behold with our eyes and hear with our ears? God forbid we deny the spirit of God and refuse the truth in order to remain in our comforts and a well and prosperous Zion.
"Brother Erekson, why did Joseph wait at least 12 years to describe/document the First Vision, and why did he have so many differing versions over the next decade? And why did Joseph F Smith hide one of those versions away in his safe so nobody would see it?"
Why ask him, read the essays dealing with these things. The church scholars that contributed to these essays will give their version of these things. The Essays are sanctioned by the leaders of the church. Read them and then do your own research.
@@SeekTruth-f6d Bingo Lazy Learners should know the Gospel Topics Essays like the back of their hands according to your Apostles. That is probably why they made them so hard to find and have NEVER mentioned them once during General Conference
This is exactly what I would expect from a church historian. Fluff and hyperbole mixed with plausible deniability and confirmation bias. But my question to you, fine sir, is why are the Gospel Topics essays so hard to find on the church website? Why are 13 of the essays so extensive and filled with footnotes that usually contain the most important information. Are you hiding something? Ashamed of the facts the church lied about for generations? And why are they in alphabetical order with the MOST controversial ones cleverly titled to be at the end of the list?
The amount of arm waving, big gestures, taking up a lot of physical space, loud speaking, criticizing... is asserting dominance. It's his way of saying 'I'm the most important person in the room, no one dare challenge what I speak. He further proves that by not answering questions or even any proof for his topic. In other words, Welcome to the circus 🎪
@@Steve-n1n2t I think she said she's only leaving it up temporarily (like maybe a week or two?), so hopefully someone else saves it and makes it available.
"Even Moses was not worthy to enter the promised land" ?!?! What have you been smoking?? Seriously? There was a specific reason why Moses could not enter the promised land and had to die.. and it did not have to do with him not being "worthy".. it had to do with his intercessory role in behalf of apostate Israel and his willingness to offer himself as a temporal atonement offering in their half to prevent them from being destroyed from off the face of the earth by the Lord.. Moses is one of the greatest prophets that has ever lived and the Lord continued to honor him after his death. Read the words of God and His servants about Moses long after his death.. Moses was such a great prophet that God claimed that Christ would be typological to Moses.. Your understanding of Old Testament history is only rivaled by your understanding of LDS church history.
@ well yes he did expose the harsh Us vs Them mindset that permeates our society. I was raised to think that various religions were all awesome and republicans and democrats respected each other. Sadly our society has now become based on “pick sides”, good guys vs bad guys with an astounding rise in conspiracy theories.
Are you making a point. The speaker said specifically that nothing is being hidden and mocked those who disagree. Are you disagreeing? Do you think there is hidden information?
@@SeekTruth-f6d Haven't you read the Gospel Topics Essay? But basically that he did, had somewhere between 30-40 wives. Married children and other men's wives. And that he issued "carefully worded denials". Basically, the Prophet of the restoration was a sexual deviant who openly broke the law and died because of it.
Wow. Just.....wow. I've been out of the church for almost three years, but I do still try to open my heart and ears to people who feel they have something important to say. Forgive me, but THIS is a fantastic representation of why I left the church and discovered peace in atheism.
TLDR Spoiler alert... Brother Erekson admits that Joseph was a polygamist. But apparently, according to him, it is OK for Michelle to be wrong about it and still teach it to others?
would like to know what jobs that his daughters experience pay disparity. Not McDonalds, Home Depot, military, airline pilot, government worker, grocery store checker, school bus driver, real estate agent, and... him throwing this out there as a trope is revealing.
Have you read the Gospel Topic Essays and ALL the footnotes? You don't have to ask him. You can see by the way he talks that you will never get a satifactory answer. Do your own research instead of relying on church historians, scholars or apologists for answers.
Oh my…. Everyone all Ex, Anti and TBM… 2:02:51 if nothing else please listen to his part about Book of Abraham. 😂😂😂😂 he can’t be serious. The audience has GOT to be very uncomfortable listening the this actual Church Employee who is a historian explain the Book of Abraham. Oh this is really really bad from EVERY angle. In the end “did we get to all the issues” that’s laughable
this guy was recently in Australia. Couldn't stand his answers. He wouldn't answer questions, skirt around the topics, and just answer things by giving us a box to think on and steps of how we should think about a situation. This does not help strengthen one's faith in Christ or lead one to Christ
I LOVE this fireside. Thanks to Michelle’s “problems” for sharing! I’m going to find it separated from her pod/channel and share it in support and appreciation to our church historians who follow the prophets. In this there is safety and peace.
Why does this guy never directly quote the arguments against the questions? (And only half-quote the arguments for the questions?) And _still_ interject complaints about polygamy affirmers missing context?! XD
you need to amplify. what is your point. have a binary, this guy is making the church look bad and giving him attention by posting his fireside is disloyal to the church. or... this guy is doing a great job defending the church but is throwing some past leaders under the bus while doing it so by posting this, Michelle is complicit in the under the bus throwing.
Shockingly, it sounds like you think that questioning the brethren is forbidden…that it’s apostasy, and should be rooted out. Is that you, Elder Oaks?…Elder Bednar?
The amount of mental gymnastics that I just went through watching this video is absolutely exhausting.
“Nowhere in your incoherent ramblings did you answer the questions given. We are all dumber for having listened to you and may God have mercy upon your soul” is what I was thinking the whole time (line from Billy Madison) 😂
😂😂 Billy Madison line. Golden comment😂😂 👍🏽
Best comment 🏆
To quote Brad Wilcox, the question you really should be asking is why are you still a member of a church that you disagree with and considers the question of Joseph's polygamy a closed case?
@@sdfotodude I’m actually no longer a member of whatever church this is, whatever god you worship; the loving Heavenly Father I worship does not condone such abominations and actually warns us of such in the scriptures. Maybe turn to the scriptures brother @sdfotodude than put your faith in the arm of flesh (another warning the Lord lists off in the BofM might I add). God bless you on your journey. I am by far not perfect, but He has told me that it is by far not and has never been in His nature to put his fair daughters and loving sons through such iniquity. It is not in His nature. The brethren SAY they condemn this vile act, but why continue with the theme that God has once commanded it before, He may command it again? It’s nowhere in the scriptures and no other faith believes this of God but the LDS alone. Maybe ponder on that a moment. I pray you come to know that for yourself one day. 🙏🏼
@bettydial-v7x don't bother praying for me ma'am I'm an atheist. But it does make you wonder why Joseph created a loophole for himself and his buddies. If you don't mind my asking what kind of church do you attend now?
Thanks for sharing this fireside. It is amazing to me that every time the church has a Q&A to "answers questions," it turns out to be nothing more than mocking those who have questions about the official approved narrative. No longer surprising, but still sad.
Yes. This man flippantly wrote off anybody who cares about the Shroud of Turin. Does that include 1.2 billion Roman Catholics? So disrespectful.
If I have honest questions about the church that I can’t seem to reconcile I’m fearful and prideful. Got it.
This guy is a master level gaslighter and manipulator.
@@rachaelwetzel554 💯
Well, I’m not sure if he is a master, it feels very immature to me, but I also agree with what you’re saying. This isn’t only historical malpractice, this is intentional historical manipulation.
He was well-trained from some of the best. 😬
My favorite was when he referred to historical polygamy as “somebody else’s sex life”. WHAT?!
"He's here to answer questions..." --- Answers no questions....
This guy is so difficult to listen to. His arrogance is off the charts.
And to hear him so mockingly say, directed OUTWARD, "Humility's hard, isn't it?"
Ugg, this presentation was just awful.
D&C 101 and Joseph saying he had only one wife is NOT a carefully worded denial. And the Voice of Innocence specifically mentions polygamy as did some of Hyrum's denials if I remember correctly.
God never used polygamy to raise up seed. He used commandments to raise up righteous see or seed unto himself.
Not entirely honest about polygamy. Saying the saints knew it was a temporary commandment is misleading. That is not what was taught. What was taught was that you had to be a polygamist to get into the celestial kingdom, and that this would never again be removed from the earth.
I actually dont have a problem with consenting adults entering into a polygamist relationship. They should have that right.
But what was taught was not that this is temporary, but instead the most righteous of all of gods commandments and it must be practiced in order to enter into the celestial kingdom.
It is gaslighting to say that that is not exactly what was taught and believed
@@ridersofthepurplesage it's not called the New and Everlasting Covenant for nothing
That's disgusting! God tells us in Scripture that the bad guys change the everlasting covenant.
Brigham changed it to polygamy, and those that followed Brigham were from then on deceived and didn't bother to SEARCH the scriptures for what the real everlasting covenant always was and is.
@@FightTheFire32 So was the line of the priesthood was forever broken and thus shouldn't you all belong to Emma's church instead? The Community of Christ has a Female Prophetess.
@sdfotodude You still think God's authority needs to be given by a man. Sad. It has always been God's to give to whomever He will, and it always will be. Unless you're one of those who believe that God "hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men"...?
None of the Mormon splinter groups have God's authority, but looking for a church that has it is missing the point. We aren't supposed to rely on the arm of flesh, but on God directly, without any intermediaries.
I've seen your other comments here, so I have little confidence that you'll let my words - or anyone else's - sink in, but when you finally do awake to a sense of your awful situation, whether in this life or the next, I hope you'll remember the many warnings and patient responses here and elsewhere to your prideful trolling.
Ok, I finally plowed through this carnage of a fireside. This is one of the best we have to represent church history? Look, I know the guy is a husband and father. He is educated and making a living working for the church. He may be a good guy as a neighbor, but I feel so blessed I do not have to sustain this strange man for anything that has to do with me. Bless his heart!
You are the best!
He says that women should not be concerned with being required to practice polygamy. He dismisses it as believing "folk tales". Perhaps because it's still being practiced in our temples?
I the LORD God, and the same yesterday today and Forever! I CHANGE NOT. I am the same from eternity to eternity,......except sometimes I change.
I attended in person and found his rephrasing of historical doctrine offensive and apostate. I submitted the question about whether polygamy was implemented to raise up children and where is marrying other men’s wives taught in scripture. It was hilarious to hear him try to talk around the subject and try to give reasons to fill in the gaps after he taught that filling in the gaps is wrong to do.
He confirmed that the church doesn’t even believe in D&C 132 scripture. The new church is whatever you want to make it to fit your life.
I was excited with what he was saying at first but after forcing myself to finish it I feel sick. I could say so much. He is asking for me to be humble but I'm having a hard time seeing his humility making jokes and making light of peoples real questions? I feel so yucky and confused. I want this to not be real. He is ignoring so much history and not giving sources, dates, etc for the points he is making.
There never has been anything righteous about polygamy. Stop blaming God and twisting scripture to make the church feel better for false doctrine.
I blame Joseph for being a "sexual deviant" He used the "God commanded me ruse"
Amen!
@@reppi8742 I Blame Joseph.
@@sdfotodude " I Blame Joseph." for what?
@SeekTruth-f6d starting polygamy
Pure sophistry! This is so bad!
We know Joseph was a polygamist because of D&C 132 (which was introduced 8 years after his death)!
K, what about the scripture that said that the church is NOT TO PRACTICE polygamy which was published many times during his lifetime??
He loses.
Yet, it was introduced by Joseph 8 years before his death. Pretty sure he didn't write it down because it was illegal and immoral. And led to his eventual demise.
@@sdfotodude " ...it was introduced by Joseph 8 years before his death. Pretty sure he didn't write it down because it was illegal and immoral" What's your source?
@SeekTruth-f6d when Oliver Cowdery and Emma saw Joseph and Fannie in the barn completing the dirty nasty filthy affair
@SeekTruth-f6d His source is Brigham Young. I'm sure there's *no* conflict of interest there, right? 🤣
@jasonsellers56 I'm guessing that Japan whether you're still a Brighamite or not
If the history department isn’t hiding things, then PUBLISH the MANY times Joseph fought against polygamy and let the saints judge for themselves if these are “carefully worded denial”.
Seriously this guy is the absolute worst.
Brother, why was section CI removed from our Scriptures? Also why did you mock those who believe the shroud of Turin is real? I don't know anyone who believes it is "magical". Isn't that the same slur used against Saints who wear garments? Matthew 9:26-27 I find this man to use smugness and belittling to emotionally manipulate people. I don't recall Christ ever doing that.
Well said! His tone is such a turn off.
The way he calls people finding out information from church history “prideful” while he stands there shaming them in the most prideful way. Look in the mirror dude. Look in the mirror. I seriously feel like I’m being gaslit by a cult leader. I’m about 48 minutes in so far.
"And in the fifty and first year of the reign of the judges there was peace also, save it were the pride which began to enter into the church-not into the church of God, but into the hearts of the people who *professed* to belong to the church of God-and they were lifted up in pride, even to the persecution of many of their brethren. Now this was a great evil, which did cause the more humble part of the people to *suffer great persecutions, and to wade through much affliction."*
- Helaman 3: 33-34
(Be sure to look up verse 35, too. 😉)
Michelle
At first I wasn’t sure why you posted this video because of his stances on certain topics. BUT…. After listening to him I know why you did. His Rambling and Mental gymnastics is unreal.
How can even a TBM listen to him and not walk away scratching their head feeling gaslit?
Honestly it’s not Anti or Ex Mormons who cast doubt. It’s historians or apologists like this that cause the damage.
He talked soooo much, but didn’t actually say ANYTHING!!
That was my exact observation. It was a waste of time. He brought nothing new to the table and I feel like he does not know what he's talking about. Why assign him this job? He doesn't know what he speaks.
This is not going to age well…at all.
I'm still only in the introduction. I like how he calls us not to think so much in binary. But I'm disappointed with his understanding of his own example of Jesus being asked about paying tribute to Caesar. If he can't be bothered for more information and activating his thinking skills with his own introductory example, this doesn't bode well for the rest of his presentation. Let me point you to some more information, Mr. Erekson, about Caesar's coin and tribute. Context is important. Where is something said and to who? Jesus was come into the temple and was approached by chief priests and elders (Matt. 21:23). He's asked about paying taxes to a man who claims to be a God. He asks for a coin. Why does he need a coin to answer the question? There is an image of Caesar on the coin. Why is this image important? He's standing in the temple looking at a graven image of a man, who was said by Romans to be a God. What's this graven image of a false God doing in the temple? What a shameful thing for the chief priests and elders to do. And then the answer: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. He's still in the temple, still speaking to supposed experts of scripture. There are plenty of verses in the "law and the prophets" about how all things belong to God. And here in the temple you can be sure Jesus phrased his answer in a way to allude to at least one they all knew by heart. Now, with this information, activate those thinking skills and please come up with a better understanding of Jesus' answer to mean both, which is a pretty poor answer, if you ask me. If you truly believe in God, you will understand that everything belongs to God, and nothing belongs to Caesar, who is not a God. But if you don't believe in God, like the Romans, you will understand, that Jesus clearly said to give to Caesar all he asks for, because clearly everything belongs to Caesar as the supreme and divine ruler of the roman empire. Jesus taught a clear lesson, putting the chief priests and elders to shame, without the possibility of using his answer against Him. Maybe we would be better at putting God first in our lives, if we stop believing that Jesus in any way condoned or even supported the rule of Caesar or maybe even the rule any man or government.
Also Mr. Erekson's understanding of the woman caught in adultery is pretty standard and therefore uninspiring and in my opinion wrong. Maybe look a bit deeper in your examples or choose some that illustrate how the simple answers handed down from our fathers are sometimes wrong and keep us from finding and accepting truth.
EDIT: Now I watched way more than is probably good for me. I'm at 1:05h and can't continue. The lack of humility, the I-know-it-all-and-you-don't attitude, is something I don't put up with anymore. When it serves him, it's all about putting things in context in way that suits him. When it doesn't serve him, context and details seem to be irrelevant, just like in his opening example of paying tribute to Caesar. Please be aware of people who lack humility. They have stopped learning - and possibly a long time ago!
"Brother Erekson, before the internet, where would we learn about the things the church purposefully wasn't "teaching"?"
Yes, he fails to mention the Gospel Topics Essays have only been posted since 2013 and not publicized to the public.
He just makes a "sum-up" of all the angles of naysayers but does not clear up one thing. He even comes up with things that no Numo thinks, just what TBM's think they think. So ridiculous. He's a total waste of time. What a sorry excuse of a teacher. Nothing here. No new information to help a learner on their path of truth.
"Brother Erekson, why did the church lie about how Joseph translated the BoM using a hat in a rock and why did they keep that rock hidden away for 180 years?"
I would suggest that you look at the sources that talk about the translation of the BofM and you might be surprised that the stone in a hat theory is not well supported at all by the best and contemporary evidence. For those who believe in the stone in a hat theory, I would ask, why don't you believe what Joseph himself said about it? 100% of all of the sources linked to Joseph support the Urim and Thummim (the spectacles) and not the stone in a hat. 100% of the sources from Olver also support the U&T. The scriptures themselves (BofM and D&C) support the U&T. The Lord, JS, and Oliver all 100% support the U&T, not the stone in a hat. Emma is a bit more complicated and beyond the scope of this comment but I will just say some of the sources support the U&T and some the seer stone, but those sources are very interesting to look at and lean more toward the U&T than a seer stone. The vast majority of the sources for Martin Harris support the U&T, except for two late sources which are problematic. The earliest sources for David Whitmer support the U&T. The other ones of his support the seer stone, but they are all very very very late and he wasn't a scribe of the BofM. All of the sources for William Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith Sr., Katherine Smith, Joseph Knight, Elizabeth Whitmer, the earliest newspaper accounts and many others all support the U&T and not the seer stone.
The vast majority of the people who said Joseph used a seer stone in a hat were his enemies, not scribes, apostates, people confused, and people misinterpreting the evidence. Joseph was not allowed to show the U&T to others (Lucy Mack was an exception). It is not hard to see why people thought it was a stone put in a hat. The U&T was described as "stone spectacles". When people heard "stone" they assumed a rock. Joseph couldn't show them the spectacles. How could Joseph wear spectacles for translation and yet not show them to the scribes. You put the glasses in a hat and then put your face in the hat wearing the spectacles. There is much much more that could be said about this, including the "rock" that the LDS church claims is from Joseph Smith. But ultimately look at the evidence from Joseph Smith himself and ask yourself if you believe him or not.
I would suggest that people look directly at the sources that talk about the translation of the BofM and one might be surprised that the stone in a hat theory is not well supported at all by the best and contemporary evidence. For those who believe in the stone in a hat theory, ask why doesn't the sources by Joseph and Oliver support it? 100% of all of the sources linked to Joseph support the Urim and Thummim (the spectacles) and not the stone in a hat. 100% of the sources from Olver also support the U&T. The scriptures themselves (BofM and D&C) support the U&T. The Lord, JS, and Oliver all 100% support the U&T, not the stone in a hat. Emma is a bit more complicated and beyond the scope of this comment but I will just say some of the sources support the U&T and some the seer stone, but those sources are very interesting to look at and lean more toward the U&T than a seer stone. The vast majority of the sources for Martin Harris support the U&T, except for two late sources which are problematic. The earliest sources for David Whitmer support the U&T. The other ones of his support the seer stone, but they are all very very very late and he wasn't a scribe of the BofM.
All of the sources for William Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith Sr., Katherine Smith, Joseph Knight, Elizabeth Whitmer, the earliest newspaper accounts and many others all support the U&T and not the seer stone. The vast majority of the people who said Joseph used a seer stone in a hat were his enemies, not scribes, apostates, people confused, and people misinterpreting the evidence. Joseph was not allowed to show the U&T to others (Lucy Mack was an exception). It is not hard to see why people thought it was a stone put in a hat. The U&T was described as "stone spectacles". When people heard "stone" they assumed a rock. Joseph was told not to show them the spectacles. How could Joseph wear spectacles for translation and yet not show them to the scribes? He could have put glasses in a hat and then put his face in the hat which would have allowed him to wear the spectacles. There is much much more that could be said about this, including the supposed "rock" that people claim came from Joseph. Ultimately, look at what the sources say from the scriptures and from Joseph, and ask if you believe them or not?
Urim and Thummim came with the plates. Joseph and Oliver ONLY spoke of that being used. All others did not witness anything, just hearsay. No rock was used in translation.
You ramble every Sunday about nothing.
The stone in a hat theory is not supported well at all by the best and contemporary evidence. 100% of all of the sources linked to Joseph support the Urim and Thummim (the spectacles) and not the stone in a hat. 100% of the sources from Olver also support the U&T. The scriptures themselves (BofM and D&C) support the U&T. The Lord, JS, and Oliver all 100% support the U&T, not the stone in a hat. Emma is a bit more complicated and beyond the scope of this comment but I will just say some of the sources support the U&T and some the seer stone, but those sources are very interesting to look at and lean more toward the U&T than a seer stone with careful analysis and context. The vast majority of the sources for Martin Harris support the U&T, except for basically two late sources which are problematic. The earliest sources for David Whitmer support the U&T. The other ones of his support the seer stone, but they are all very very late and he wasn't a scribe of the BofM. All of the sources for William Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith Sr., Katherine Smith, Joseph Knight, Elizabeth Whitmer, the earliest newspaper accounts and many others all support the U&T and not the seer stone.
The vast majority of the people who said Joseph used a seer stone in a hat were his enemies, not scribes, apostates, people confused or influenced by others, and people misinterpreting the evidence. Joseph was not allowed to show the U&T to others (Lucy Mack was an exception). It is not hard to see why people thought it was a stone put in a hat. The U&T was described as "stone spectacles". When people heard "stone" they may have assumed just one rock. Joseph couldn't show them the spectacles. How could Joseph wear spectacles for translation and yet not show them to the scribes. You put the glasses in a hat and then put your face in the hat wearing the spectacles. There is much much more that could be said about this, including about the "rock" that the LDS church claims came from Joseph. But ask if you believe Joseph and the scriptures in regards to the translation or not?
@sdfotodude "Brother Erekson, why did the church lie about how Joseph translated the BoM using a hat in a rock and why did they keep that rock hidden away for 180 years?" Good question, and why are they lying about Joseph being a polygamist?
I’m so confused. The church has him on salary to present this? This is terrible. He is doing the church no favors.
"Brother Erekson, could you define gaslighting, and isn't that the same as moving the goalposts?"
He says that polygamy had "served its purpose ". I am still unclear as to what the purpose was.
This “historian” has done more damage to the restored gospel, than John Dehlin and Denver Snuffer combined. But he repeats the narrative so he can keep his job. All is well in Zion. Shame!
I made a comment on one of Brian Hales videos that he didn't like. I said "Brother Hales you charged the prophet Joseph Smith with the crime of polygamy, found him guilty and you never allowed him to defend himself"
This is a complete train wreck. Oh my goodness.
What a tool. I can’t even finish this, I’m too nauseous.
Women these days are not paid less than men to do the exact same job with the same qualifications; may have been true in the past but it would be a foolish company indeed that would openly do so and keep a record of it. Perhaps he is referring to Church employment policies 🤔
And so, you are an apologist. You candy coat everything with a smile. Glittering Generalities pretending to be "The Final Say".
2:07:35 “After Joseph and Oliver were ordained, there has never been another angelic ordination.” Or, to editorialize as he likes to do, “Angelic ordinations were done in the days of Joseph Smith, and there will never be any more of them. God doesn’t do that anymore, He did His work; He’s given His power unto men now! So if you hear about miracles being done, believe it not!” So wild to basically hear that one, of all verses, being taught over the pulpit.
"Brother Erekson, why are the Gospel Topics Essays so hard to find? And is the one talking about polygamy accurate?"
The Gospel Topic Essays talking about polygamy raise more questions than answers. Where are the children that Joseph had with his plural wives? Why didn't Joseph have section 101 on monogamist marriage removed from the D&C and it replaced with section 132? Why did it take 32 years after Joseph death to have section 132 included in the D&C? Where did God tell him to pratice polygamy in secret and lie about it in public?
14:32 I’m just going to make a few notes here because this is amazing! I sure wish I’d gotten this lesson a looooong time ago in the church. I learned, on my own, about binary thinking, critical thinking and complexity. If it weren’t for Thomas McConkie I’d still be a zealous believer in the church. How many others like myself still see the world in black and white. 16:42 Yet that absolute right and wrong is what we read in scripture and has been the narrative and perception through out the majority of time in Mormon existence.
27:44 Clearly, as an active lifelong believing member of the church who has been in nearly every leadership position in the church and whose hobby scripture and gospel study. I feel confident that I have been taught truth and have been dealt with honestly. No?? I’ve only been taught a narrative that top leadership and correlation committee believe are faith promoting. 😮 That’s a problem.
28:52 what if ones study and learning teaches us something new that’s contrary to what we’ve been taught in the church?
These example are b.s. You know what happens to those who study and find contrary or expaned version of church history. That same Russel M Nelson then calls us, “Lazy learners and lax disciples.”😕
The humor is cute and the condescending tone and assumption’s are THICK!
1:20:25 polygamy is a huge, messy and ongoing topic and problem in the church because Joseph Smith and his character are all wrapped up in it. Either He was an honest trust worthy man and prophet of God in this last dispensation of time, who could be relied upon as a trustworthy leader. Or he was not. I’d love to hear Bro. Erickson nuance that for us.
1:35:08 Now you want to talk about Joseph being called to repentance many times by the Lord. Okay. But I find it strange that Josephs original intention for seeking the Lord to in prayer was to receive forgiveness of sin but that was not included in the canonized version of the the first vision. What?!
The problem with apologetics is this. Any topic can be addressed and manipulated to make sense in isolation but those adjustments and manipulations to one topic affect all the surrounding topics but we aren’t allowed to follow the dominos, we’re to be content with the one issue that was nuanced. 😩 It’s defys logic and reason, two things the Lord doesn’t seem to care much for.
1:35:23 No one claims that Prophets are perfect and make no mistakes. Of course we know they screw up their taxes, yell at their kids, maybe procrastinate teaching uncomfortable things. What we believe was what we were taught, that the Lord will not allow a prophet to lead the church astray. Which is only focusing on prophetic teachings. If we can’t rely on a prophet to teaching and speak the word of God, what good are they?
1:45:24 So black folks not being allowed to hold the priesthood or participate in the saving work of the Temple, -was just a guy filling the gaps? Really? That makes God look extremely inept, cruel to not straighten things out and instead allow good people to suffer in his restored gospel? God himself allowing unrighteous dominion in his restored church.
If Joseph Smith was able to find, hide and translate ancient records into the BOM via the gift and power of God. Then why would those same spiritual gifts “mantal” not follow with the succeeding prophets? Why should we not be right in trusting and following that the prophet trusting that he would be directed to know truth from err etc?
1:46:17 one thing that I can confidently say I was never taught in the LDS faith it was that! To say, “I don’t know”. In fact I was taught to begin any testimony with, “I know”. Nice try but you cannot just throw this at people who’ve been righteously doing what they were taught to do. There’s a learning curve and it also requires leadership to come in with humility and patience.
1:47:39 I know that I was asked to not bear my testimony if I continued to start with “I believe” or “I hope”. I know, I know, that was just my bishop doing his best to follow incorrect teaching he got from his leaders who got it from their imperfect leaders who…. 😮💨
Used to. Became a shrink some years long ago then I realized the world is all black and rotten.
It does start out pretty good -- but it is amazing how quickly it descends into unbelievably bad sophistry and apologetics. I was truly astounded by the arrogance, and the blatant dishonesty. By the end, I could barely believe what I had heard.
@@MichelleBStone I am glad you clarified this--I had some curiosities. I would agree on the sophistry. This lecture actually brought to mind Lycophron a Greek sophist who was thought, by many, to be an early social contract thinker. In many ways, we can look at what was said in this lecture in purest of sophist means of "knowledge is a communion of knowledge and of soul" which takes me to "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2nd Timothy, 4:3-4, KJV).
Who’s going to tell the Stake Pres that he can listen, hear and learn from Bro. Erickson without having to literally keep his eyes on the back of his head. 😂 Kinda creepy.
42:54 Michelle, I just can’t. I’m so sorry you take the brunt of this condescending BS.
Even the smallest amount of institutional humility would go a long way.
Also, why send Bro Erickson to do the job of setting the saints straight? Why not send someone with keys and authority?
Who’s really in charge here?
Hey guys, I figured out what priestcraft is. It’s being paid by a church to present absolute mush to the people and pass it off as history. 😂
He exposed himself and what many church historians do by saying we have to be creative and imagine how things may have been and then look for the evidence to back it up. They seek out a certain narrative and discard what doesn’t fit their story at the expense of being factually and historically accurate.
Exactly. He's not looking for evidence, he's looking to confirm what he already believes. That's not how the Scientific Method works, so he should not be taken seriously by anyone.
This just made my testimony of the Gospel even weaker. These historians are FULL of denials!!
Don't you mean it made your testimony of a church and church leaders weaker? The gospel isn't the church.
@@MrFishwalker The church changed the teachings about blacks not having the priesthood, The church doesn't teach blood atonement anymore and Brigham's teachings that Adam was God has been done away with. All it needs to do is admit that Brigham made a mistake in introducing polygamy and they can distance themselves from it, like they have done with his other claimed doctrines. The church can survive, all it has to do is to be honest when dealing with it's problematic history. As you say "the gospel isn't the church". We should not be worshipping the leaders.
@@SeekTruth-f6d You mentioned a few noteworthy examples, but there's so much more. Some of the core theologies in the church need changing, as well as the temple endowment. I would say top to bottom needs an overhaul. Personally, I think the longest-held teaching in the church that needs to be struck from the records is that the "prophet can never lead you astray." This was introduced by Brigham and regurgitated by every leader since then. This false precept makes lesser gods of men and breaks the first of ten commandments. It's also the one core teaching that must be addressed because if we can never question a leader, nothing will ever change. The Law of Common Consent (by the people) must be reinstated over the draconian mind-control practice of "sustaining."
@MrFishwalker No. I mean the the Mormon Gospel, taught after Joseph Smith died. The teachings of the church, the temple ordinances, the word of wisdom, the blacks and the priesthood, tithing, etc...
Denials are not the only thing that guy is full of!!
So, there is a paid ministry after all.
They preach prophets can see around corners, yet they can't fill in gaps of history? Prophets and apostles for 150 years perpetuated "the seed of Cain" temple ban. I guess it's true until it isn't.
Only 49 minutes in and so far my feelings on what he's been sharing have been mixed... like trying to appease both sides is a good thing... i dunno...I keep waiting for a spontaneous response from someone in the audience...I can't wait to hear Michelle's take on this 🙏
15:25 *The church with its billions of dollars talking to a poor person* “do you want one dollar or two?“
This was the most twisted, uncomfortable, completely lacking the spirit, message, I have ever heard. He's oddly defensive, spewing with hubris, arrogance and sadly, embarrassingly wrong and incorrect with his " evidence, " info, so sad. I TRUST JOSEPH. So should he. This is cringy, and makes me incredibly sad to still feel such disappointment and distrust 8n leadership.
By the way, thanks for posting this in its entirety! I’m listening to it before I start your discussion on it, and I’m glad to have the full context (which I hear is important for understanding this topic, lol) before I start in on your dissection o7
Thank you for making this available. 👍🏻
Brother Erekson seems to be prideful himself.
Brother Erekson, couldn't Joseph have "sealed" himself to everyone all at once rather than select children and other men's wives behind Emma's back. And why resort to denying it to the flock?"
Even if you believe the sealings are real and innocent, this is still a good question. Why couldnt it be done at once
We will never know the truth about this because the polygamists changed things to tie Joseph to polygamy so as to justify their own abominable evil practice of polygamy.
We all tell ourselves stories about our reality. The trick is being humble enough to follow the iron rod and build on the Rock of Christ.
Here’s what made my ears bleed as I listened to this man…
When an academic, leaning so heavily on their intellectual superiority proven by their diploma more than their reasoning, has the nerve to lecture others on their “poor reasoning”, and do so using a litany of every logical fallacy in the book (ad hominem, appeal to authority, presupposition, etc) it really gets my hackles up.
Binary questions *really* bother this guy. Newsflash…just because a question is binary, doesn’t make it wrong…and you *aren’t* the Savior.
So here’s one more binary question, and if answered to my satisfaction, I’ll be in Sacrament Meeting next week…
Which of the prophets are liars?!?
- Brigham Young, with his laundry list of demonstrably false doctrines that have been disavowed by the church…several of which (including polygamy) that he tried to add legitimacy to by citing a conveniently revealed private conversation he had with Joseph, but not until after his death?
- Or Joseph and Hyrum’s many very public and contemporaneous condemnations of polygamists and their practices…with a dash of Gordon B Hinckley’s nationally televised interview in which he “condemned the practice” and said that it was “NOT DOCTRINAL”?
Who was lying? Because it is an absolute truism that someone was.
Not convincing at all, same old, same old - I made notes and time stamps to challenge what he said, want to counter my own bias, I found him so dismissive of other peoples motives. I could write forever but one small point when was talking about the WoW, the members couldn't handle it or leaders? Didn't B Young have a vineyard and a distillery? Didn't B Young divert goods of which his whiskey was contained, whilst people were on the plains? Didn't Heber J Grant drink beer (6 glasses a day I believe) to put weight on, but after all it was only a commandment from the Lord so we will put it off until people will obey, oh wait, it wasn't a commandment but we will make it one to go to the Temple. BTW I liked the video, not because I liked the video but because I appreciate you sharing it. He did get one thing correct, Church Historians are certainly creative.
Testimonies and gospel knowledge of sentient human beings tend to follow a familiar pattern with three phases: the Garden of Eden, the Fall, and the Atonement. Bro. Erekson seems to be stuck in the Garden of Eden, where everything is rainbows and unicorns. One wonders what causes this kind of arrested development that evolves into such a degree of sarcasm and arrogance.
Key to the church building! That’s more functional than all the keys in the quorum of the 12 combined! Don’t belittle church keys! They can actually unlock something!
He's so flippant. To begin your presentation under these assumptions is an egregious error and drives the spirit away. What a shame.
It is unfortunate that brother Erickson isn’t clear what Section 132 is about. I don’t remember if he described the provenance of the letter. Also, why would Emma be fearful of monogamous eternal marriage. She had to be threatened with destruction to follow the new law of eternal monogamy?
If one opens the transcript and puts the video on pause, take 5 minutes and read what he is saying at any given place verses listening. He is putting on a show. He has no clue what he is doing and has not idea what he is talking about. This is a man who is seeking approval. Imagine his poor spouse and what he must suffer from this guy.
I couldn’t even finish this! This is exactly the problem, these people calling themselves historians, and attacking those who have studied the evidence and discovered different conclusions. Gag me. His approach is so offensive.
Seems like a red flag when answering questions has to start with a preface for why someone won't be able to correctly get the answer.
If there ever was a time for men and women to apply James 1:5-8 as the Prophet Joseph did, it is now! The world and LDS Church today are in worse shape than in the days of Joseph Smith. The "restoration" of truth is alive today in the hearts of the honest, true, and chase [13th Article of Faith]; It is a spiritual gathering and it will continue until the Lord comes.
"Brother Erekson, since your income depends on the church, what would you change about the church, and would you be afraid to say that out loud?"
@sdfotodude "Brother Erekson, since your income depends on the church, what would you change about the church, and would you be afraid to say that out loud?" Why would he answer a question like that?
@@SeekTruth-f6d OK, how about I rephrase the question. Bro E why has the church lied about its history so often and allowed its members to teach something they clearly knew was wrong?
@@sdfotodude Like I said, "why would he answer a question like that?". Why do you think the church lied about its history? Why do you think they lied about Joseph Smith introducing and practicing polygamy?
@SeekTruth-f6d why did they have to put out the gospel topics essays then and why are they hidden on their website
@SeekTruth-f6d it is built into the DNA of mormonism. Shame
Oh man, he really is spiritually blinded. He tries to lay a foundation of discipleship in Christ to sweeten up his sour words. He then proceeds to speak void of the spirit of God and just appeal to his own expertise and those before him. He is the epitomy of what Christ called liars and hypocrites. Of course the scribes and Pharisees would interject saying, "We didn't lie. How are we hypocrites?" They throw shade on God himself calling Him a liar of his judgements upon and prophecy about them. We've seen these types before in scripture. We know what God says about them. Do we actually believe what we behold with our eyes and hear with our ears? God forbid we deny the spirit of God and refuse the truth in order to remain in our comforts and a well and prosperous Zion.
I couldn't make it past his introduction. Aspire to the honors of men much?
"Brother Erekson, where did the BoM occur and what is the best evidence proving your opinion?"
Where do you think the BoM occured?
"Brother Erekson, with all that you know, why do you still believe?"
Are you a member of the church? Do you still believe with all that you know?
"Brother Erekson, why did Joseph wait at least 12 years to describe/document the First Vision, and why did he have so many differing versions over the next decade? And why did Joseph F Smith hide one of those versions away in his safe so nobody would see it?"
Why ask him, read the essays dealing with these things. The church scholars that contributed to these essays will give their version of these things. The Essays are sanctioned by the leaders of the church. Read them and then do your own research.
@@SeekTruth-f6d Bingo Lazy Learners should know the Gospel Topics Essays like the back of their hands according to your Apostles. That is probably why they made them so hard to find and have NEVER mentioned them once during General Conference
This is exactly what I would expect from a church historian. Fluff and hyperbole mixed with plausible deniability and confirmation bias. But my question to you, fine sir, is why are the Gospel Topics essays so hard to find on the church website? Why are 13 of the essays so extensive and filled with footnotes that usually contain the most important information. Are you hiding something? Ashamed of the facts the church lied about for generations? And why are they in alphabetical order with the MOST controversial ones cleverly titled to be at the end of the list?
The amount of arm waving, big gestures, taking up a lot of physical space, loud speaking, criticizing... is asserting dominance. It's his way of saying 'I'm the most important person in the room, no one dare challenge what I speak. He further proves that by not answering questions or even any proof for his topic. In other words,
Welcome to the circus 🎪
Well that was a dumpster fire. I hope someone saved that to share later. This is clearly going to get deleted.
i just realized this was shared from 132 problems. Glad it won't get deleted then.
For some reason, that really got me. I honestly have tears in my eyes from laughing.
@@Steve-n1n2t I think she said she's only leaving it up temporarily (like maybe a week or two?), so hopefully someone else saves it and makes it available.
Going be working on a transcript once I get home 👍
Brother Erekson, If I want to be a mental gymnast, what should I do to become successful?"
Work for the church history department! 😁
@spen7899 would you agree with me that the church employs pathological Liars and that is all approved by the first presidency? Why is that?
Become an apologist for the church. Publish books like Brian Hales has done, that could be very lucrative.
"Even Moses was not worthy to enter the promised land" ?!?!
What have you been smoking??
Seriously?
There was a specific reason why Moses could not enter the promised land and had to die.. and it did not have to do with him not being "worthy".. it had to do with his intercessory role in behalf of apostate Israel and his willingness to offer himself as a temporal atonement offering in their half to prevent them from being destroyed from off the face of the earth by the Lord..
Moses is one of the greatest prophets that has ever lived and the Lord continued to honor him after his death.
Read the words of God and His servants about Moses long after his death..
Moses was such a great prophet that God claimed that Christ would be typological to Moses..
Your understanding of Old Testament history is only rivaled by your understanding of LDS church history.
I’ve never been LDS so I was hesitant to watch this but wow was this terrific.
How so? To see what a bunch of basket cases we are 😀
@ well yes he did expose the harsh Us vs Them mindset that permeates our society. I was raised to think that various religions were all awesome and republicans and democrats respected each other. Sadly our society has now become based on “pick sides”, good guys vs bad guys with an astounding rise in conspiracy theories.
Needs to keep his job.
All of my money has dead people on it.
"Brother Erekson, did Joseph accurately translate the papyri that form the basis of the Book of Abraham?"
Have you read the Gospel Topics Essays dealing with th translation of the papyri? What do you think?
Is it possible the church history department has access to MORE information on polygamy than the public does? in fact, is it not PROBABLE?
Are you making a point. The speaker said specifically that nothing is being hidden and mocked those who disagree. Are you disagreeing? Do you think there is hidden information?
@@trainwreck656 It's a yes or no question. Try again.
"Brother Erekson, if the church wasn't true, would you want to know?" Or is that a binary?
"Brother Erekson, did Joseph introduce and practice polygamy?"
What do you think? Did Joseph introduce and practice polygamy?
Easy answer to that question. No, Josph didn't introduce or practice polygamy.
@SeekTruth-f6d that is not what the church says
@ So, what does the church say about Joseph Smith introducing and practicing polygamy?
@@SeekTruth-f6d Haven't you read the Gospel Topics Essay? But basically that he did, had somewhere between 30-40 wives. Married children and other men's wives. And that he issued "carefully worded denials". Basically, the Prophet of the restoration was a sexual deviant who openly broke the law and died because of it.
Wow. Just.....wow. I've been out of the church for almost three years, but I do still try to open my heart and ears to people who feel they have something important to say. Forgive me, but THIS is a fantastic representation of why I left the church and discovered peace in atheism.
TLDR Spoiler alert... Brother Erekson admits that Joseph was a polygamist. But apparently, according to him, it is OK for Michelle to be wrong about it and still teach it to others?
So Joseph was a liar, according to him. I don't believe Joseph was a liar.
@@reppi8742I believe Joseph wasn't just a liar about polygamy but he was a pathological liar and the church has been lying for the next 200 years
Brother Erekson, why did the church art portray Joseph translating plates. And were they made of gold?"
Why ask him, he will never give you a straight answer. Do you own research.
would like to know what jobs that his daughters experience pay disparity. Not McDonalds, Home Depot, military, airline pilot, government worker, grocery store checker, school bus driver, real estate agent, and... him throwing this out there as a trope is revealing.
If you haven't read the Gospel Topics Essays and ALL the footnotes. Why is that?
Have you read the Gospel Topic Essays and ALL the footnotes? You don't have to ask him. You can see by the way he talks that you will never get a satifactory answer. Do your own research instead of relying on church historians, scholars or apologists for answers.
@@SeekTruth-f6dinteresting that we never get to tackle the essays for Sunday lessons. Just recycling discussions on conference talks.
Oh my…. Everyone all Ex, Anti and TBM… 2:02:51 if nothing else please listen to his part about Book of Abraham. 😂😂😂😂 he can’t be serious. The audience has GOT to be very uncomfortable listening the this actual Church Employee who is a historian explain the Book of Abraham. Oh this is really really bad from EVERY angle. In the end “did we get to all the issues” that’s laughable
this guy was recently in Australia. Couldn't stand his answers. He wouldn't answer questions, skirt around the topics, and just answer things by giving us a box to think on and steps of how we should think about a situation. This does not help strengthen one's faith in Christ or lead one to Christ
Have you already emailed me at 132problems@gmail.com? If not would you please email me? I would love to talk to the people who were there.
@@MichelleBStone I have some poorly recorded footage of it.
So many certainties.
Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. But much speaking. The opposite of let your communications be yea yea and nay may.
1:09:17 “My link is gone, I need another person:” So was the link for eternity, or not? He’s losing me on a lot of these summarized points
If that’s the rule and polygamy is the exception then what the hell is section 132? Wait the ten virgins that righteous men get? What is that?
He made a great case for James Strang 🎉🎉🎉
He became so dang wiggly trying to talk about the plural marriage evidence 😂 and never really said anything!!!!
I LOVE this fireside. Thanks to Michelle’s “problems” for sharing! I’m going to find it separated from her pod/channel and share it in support and appreciation to our church historians who follow the prophets. In this there is safety and peace.
Sarcasm? Or do you like yours cherry flavored?
I don’t know how this could possibly support or show appreciation for the church or leaders
Is there an original version of this video on TH-cam?
Not anymore. It was removed - I can't remember who originally posted it.
Why does this guy never directly quote the arguments against the questions? (And only half-quote the arguments for the questions?) And _still_ interject complaints about polygamy affirmers missing context?! XD
Michelle where did this fireside take place? Was it in your ward or stake?
It was at the Far West Missouri Stake. It's on the bottom left hand corner of the Zoom video when it begins.
@@nbk0011 Missed that. Thanks
the stake leader is smitten, rapt attention and taking notes
@Michelle what is your motivation for posting this Fireside? It sounds like you are questioning the brethren and their representatives.
you need to amplify. what is your point. have a binary, this guy is making the church look bad and giving him attention by posting his fireside is disloyal to the church. or... this guy is doing a great job defending the church but is throwing some past leaders under the bus while doing it so by posting this, Michelle is complicit in the under the bus throwing.
Shockingly, it sounds like you think that questioning the brethren is forbidden…that it’s apostasy, and should be rooted out.
Is that you, Elder Oaks?…Elder Bednar?
I think she’s posting it to let us decide for ourselves.. Michelle is great about sharing sources so we can research.
@@brijsmi072 They are BLESSED to be your next two leaders. Think things will be getting better?
@@aimdarlene Have you read the Churches Gospel Topics Essay and done a deep dive on the footnotes?