I really appreciated this episode, this is my mom! 😊 When the religious fanaticism is removed it’s obvious how wrong polygamy is. In the church the brainwashing, allegiance to leaders and shame associated with having differing opinions is what creates so many people believing these absurd teachings. People that otherwise have great critical thinking skills turn them off when church is involved. Thanks mom, for having the courage to stand up for good- even when the consequence might be fellow members questioning your faith. But the real question is, who are they putting their faith in? Probably men and not God.
I was like so many women who simply trusted when taking my endowments and marriage sealing 45 years ago. About 25 years ago, while doing sealings, I started to pay attention to the words the sealer was saying and realized that I was instructed to receive my husband unto myself and then give myself unto him. But when it came time for his covenant, he was only instructed to receive me unto himself. There was no "giving" himself to me but only receiving, receiving, receiving.... That's when I knew I had made polygamy covenants that I never realized at my wedding. It has been a wonderful blessing to know that this supposed doctrine was never from God.
Yes, it is wonderful to know this is not of God, yet so upsetting to see even more camouflaged polygamy covenants in the temple. I haven't been involved with sealings for many years so I wasn't aware of this.
Anything that is being done in secret should automatically have a red flag on it. I’ve often wondered just how we can let our voices be heard about these important issues and questions we have? We can write a letter or an email to church headquarters but it will never be responded to or considered. We can talk to our local leaders, which is what we are told to do, but will they actually push our concerns up the line? I find they don’t. They are good people and try to address our concerns, but unless our leaders have the same concerns then nothing will ever happen… also all the leaders are men, and in general they don’t tend to have a problem with anything the church does... or If they admit that do they get released. It seems like an impenetrable wall.
It feels that way. As I said, the precedent that makes me consider that our voices will be heard is the blacks and the priesthood issue. Two years after I came back from my mission, after telling black investigators that their blessings would be limited, suddenly that changed. The church felt the pressure and made the change. Who knows? But I emailed my stake president about the recent primary material adding plural marriage. I asked him to pass this up the ladder. He said it would come back to him and he'd be asked to counsel with me. My response was I want him to pass this on so that my voice will be added to the voice of others who are also unhappy and perhaps leaders will see the need for change. He said he'd forward my email on. We'll see...
Yes it seems there is a communication breach and it is quite frustrating. I often wonder though.. it seems youTube has opened up a bridge between that gap. I know that those in the leadership do notice the voices spoken on TH-cam and so technically the more voices leaking on a subject the more the world as well as members changes their views and will be seen.
Thank you for another amazing episode, I'm so glad you never gave up on this channel. You will be the change - it only takes one small voice to become thousands!
The Prophet Nephi said it best-over and over again. Look at all of the references to Plain and Precious Truths in the Concordance. Plural Marriage is not Plain nor precious. But who am I? President Nelson has invited all of us to be Gospel Scholars. However, according to the haughty scholars at Scripture Central, I am just a junk scientist, a Mormon hack who is not credentialed. Therefore, Plain and Precious must be explained to me as complex, hard-to-understand concepts. LOVE THIS PODCAST. Michelle, you are a weekly guest lecturer/teacher in my "man cave".
Romans 1;22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,
@@michaelt.fernandez6846 The principle and the practice of plural marriage created the House of Israel. Your personal moral “dislikes” can’t tell us whether the principle of plural marriage is a plain and precious doctrine.
It was several years ago when I woke up to many of the false traditions in the LDS church after I prayed to God to please, please reveal to me if there was any belief I had that I believed was true with all my heart but was not true. Polygamy was first on that list! I was introduced to the idea of polygamy not being from God but introduced into the church by Brigham young through a book called “The Secret Chamber-spiritual wifery and the Doctrine of Christ” by Val Brinkerhoff. It sure did shake up my belief in polygamy…. but as I pondered and paid attention to the spirit working in me It came to me to ask God for a second witness. It wasn’t long after when random things would be revealed to me about this being a false principle. And as those would cross my path I took each one to God in prayer and now I’m flooded with so many wonderful “second witnesses”. Thank you for all of the work you women do to spread this truth. What I feel I have learned about Gods truth is that if the fruits of a principle don’t produce joy and happiness in our everyday lives and relationships and can be transparent and understood by a child and loved by a child’s pure heart then it is of God.
"The Secret Chamber" book was one of the first I read on this also. He had a lot of interesting ideas I had never considered. That book helped wake me up!
At 41 minutes… “if you want me to provide for you, you have to marry me”. But THAT didn’t even work either! Even those wives that were married polygamously to some of early Utah’s most wealthy men ended up having to work to support themselves and their children.
Exactly. I was raised by a widow. The idea that she should remarry so good men could help her was always repulsive and anti-Christ to me. A lot of good men stepped up and helped her and her 6 young children. None of them had to have sex with my mom in exchange for Their service, either. 🤮
The original 1835 and 1844 version of D&C the new the everlasting covenant isn't connected to polygamy not even marriage. The new and everlasting covenant is our own personal relationship with God and the covenants we've made with him. It's beautifully written by Joseph Smith in his books. Brigham perverted everything. This was a great episode 👌. You both did a fascistic job
This is fantastic! I love this conversation, thank you:) She is right how many people don't want to even touch the Book of Mormon because of the bad example of polygamy = taking God's name in vain. Since leaving the church, I have been much more bold in sharing the Book of Mormon with others, and sharing that it's for all people, like the Bible isn't just for Catholics, and that they can read it and believe it without having to join any particular organization. I hope as more and more people have this perspective that more people will read it and love it and come closer to Christ.
I didn't tear out 132, but I did cross out the sections that are part of "doctrines of devils". That felt good. I did not know Ben McClintock is a polygamist!! ugh... so sad. I live in central UT and see polygamist women all the time. I really wish I could help them see that Joseph taught MONOGAMY only... if they knew that, many of them could get out of those situations-maybe? I was on a path of thinking the LDS church was in apostasy because they weren't living that "law", until I learned better. People don't go back far enough, gotta go all the way back to Joseph to learn the truth. Not going to find it in John Taylor or Brigham Young!!!
@michelle @~37:00 your description of the deceptive spirit of polygamy was DEAD on. I want to add though that it is currently in its death throes and KNOWS it, because unlike most of the oblivious world, it knows Who is coming.
I'm also in southern Utah and yes the polygamist are everywhere!!! It's so heartbreaking!! We know Brian Hales is an undercover polygamist. I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of our members were undercover polygamist. My daughter's boss was an escaped male polygamist. He told many horror stories
My understanding is that Brian is actually only sealed to one wife -- Laura, who passed away. He and his first wife were divorced, and his current wife is sealed to her deceased husband.
Absolutely agree that the polygamy covenants expected shouldn't be hidden from the women. In my life now I know that Brigham just made it all up after he hijacked the church after Joseph was murdered.
I first listened to Kathy on an episode of the Iron Rod Podcast, which lead me to her blog. I reached out to her and let her know about Michelle's new channel at the time. Glad to see Kathy on. Look forward to the episode. Kathy, I wonder what the guys from the Iron Rod Podcast think of this content? They no longer blog or put out episodes.
Jackie!! Yes you did suggest I listen to Michelle. Thank you! I have no idea what happened to the Iron Rod guys. I know once they went through the Book of Mormon and D&C, they felt they'd covered what was needed. There was plenty of other Bible commentary. I'm still grateful for their insights though. They helped me measure doctrine with scripture. We can hope that we're inspired to know things, but that sometimes proves to be mistaken. A lot of early saints felt God inspired them to be polygamist. They should have been measuring that against Book of Mormon scripture.
There are 15 women in the church who can speak out about polygamy and directly influence church leaders to make a policy/doctrinal change, and do so without any fear of church discipline. They know who they are.
Their only limitation is their own fear of what man can do. I believe Wendy has already been a huge influence on her husband as evidenced by so many alterations in previously sexist language in the endowment, inclusion of women in counsels etc.
@michelle Jesus got very emotional in the 3rd Nephi account at the same moment when He declared His “joy was full”. Belittling people because they are “emotional” when it aligns STRONGLY with their heart (like your emotion ALWAYS is), is anti Christ. Don’t you dare stop being you!! ❤❤❤
This was powerful! A thought: if we are making a covenant in the temple by subterfuge, then we are not held to it. Those responsible for it would be held accountable before God for perverting His word. I guess what I am saying is that if it is a lie and goes against God's word it is meaningless. When the Savior comes, what will the brethren who are responsible for this, do when they face Him or will they not get the chance. I think these men better wake up before it is "everlastingly too late"!
"A covenant in the temple by subterfuge" is a good description of how I felt. Since I don't think anyone has the power to make women eternal polygamous wives and God doesn't have that wish, I don't think any of us will be held to it. But, I agree, it doesn't seem like a good choice to be behind this scheme. All I can do is decide the best course for me and follow Michelle's advice and pray for whoever might have the inclination and influence to change this.
God is the alpha and all powerful, so prayer is absolutely the best and first thing all of us can do. ❤️ And yet with all that power God is a just God and our Father who loves us, loves purity, and loves the hearts of his daughters. ❤️❤️ He will plead out cause and provide miracles when we feel all hope is lost and turn to him.
Michelle, This this was a great episode. I appreciate how your guest demonstrated the bad effects of polygamy without being distracted (and discrediting her excellent message) into offering a firm opinion as to which fallible person authored the troubling parts of 132.
Yes, it it is the law and includes one wife only. But Section 132.has its own law: the new and everlasting covenant. Vs 6. And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
The New and Everlasting Covenant is one man one woman married with God's authority. A man cannot live this law if he needs justification to live the lesser principle (which I believe is not righteous, but of man only) which is what D&C 132 is all about. It is talking about God's true law and how maybe a man is justified if he happens to live the other law pertaining to the commandments of men. Look at it with new eyes and you will see clearly. 👍
@@stacihymas4539 Are you saying 132 is talking about a lesser law? Perhaps I misunderstand. I think 132 is describing what it claims is the highest law: the law of the new and everlasting covenant which is the doctrine of having many wives and concubines. 132 tells me the only way to the highest kingdom is through polygamy. Of course, the new and everlasting covenant described everywhere else (without that exact wording though) is talking about something other than polygamy. 132 contradicts other scriptures.
27:50. "I like to gossip too, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing" Thanks Kathy. You hit the nail right on the head. That is exactly what's going on here. :>)
Yep, it's stereotypical but sometimes women like to gossip and men like to sleep with multiple partners. This was not gossip though. This was defending the truth that men sleeping with multiple women is plain old adultery.
Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse I agree. So does the Lord but gossip is still gossip. I'm not off sleeping with multiple women nor is anyone else I personally know so you must mean some other men somewhere else. That's good. Adultery?? I thought we were talking about plural marriage.
The Lord said that desiring another woman to lust after her is adultery. In the older terms when the Bible was written to "lust" meant to desire for yourself. It was not actually related to sexual desire. But either way, if you want another for yourself when you have one to cleave to that would be adultery.
@@stacihymas4539 Well there ya go! Righteous men who partook in proper plural marriage never desired wives unto themselves. They did it to raise up seed unto the Lord. Context..... context. 😇
Well there ya go Staci! Righteous men who partook in proper plural marriage never desired wives unto themselves. They did it to raise up seed unto the Lord. If the did, such as King David fell into lust... God took his wives away and gave them to another man who took on David's wives for God, not himself.
Are you familiar with The Ancient Tradition podcast? Or the book Beloved Bridegroom? I think you make good points- i also shake my head when people who i think of as reasonable dismis you as being simply emotional, for all the reasons you feel the injustice and insensitivty of that view of your work. That said, I have a renewed love of the temple when i view it through the ancient symbolism, and keeping Hebrew wedding traditions in mind. Sometimes when we see differences between what men and women do in the temple, if we look at it through the lense of men being presentative of Christ, and women being representative of "the church", it illuminates the meaning. Not sure that applies with the specific words you discuss in this episode. But sometimes it helps. The Hebrew Wedding tradition is so beautifully rich with meanjng- I love it. Understanding it has helped me feel more confident in Jesus Christ and Elohim. Your work is a difficult work- I appreciate your willingness to do it. Also, I nearly cried when Kathy told the story of her son in law tearing out 132.
@americathebeautiful9613 All I can say is take your questions and feelings to God. He has much better answers than I. I am grateful every day for increasing insights and revelation. Things that once brought pain and confusion seem clear and easily understood. New things bring pain and confusion. Based on my past experience, I have hope that the pain and confusion can be resolved. I hope that for myself and everyone else seeking God.
42:00 mark. I think there is a better interpretation of Genesis 3:16 than what has been attributed to it. Look up the article by Jeffery Bradshaw Jan 18, 2018 on the interpreter foundation website "Was Adam meant to rule over or rule with Eve?". Spoiler: It's neither. The verse is more descriptive of the consequences of the Fall than is prescriptive. Check it out!
I'm always looking for a better understanding on that phrase so I'll check it out. Dennis Prager may say the same thing because he says it's descriptive also. Women generally prefer a man who will make more money, be taller, stronger, etc. But we're free to to choose.
@kathybence I like Dennis Prager. I haven't personally listened to him on this topic of desire. This is just a teaser of the article. I wonder what Prager would think of this Hebrew interpretation. If you can't find the article just let me know and I'll email it to you. However, when the Lord tells Eve “thy desire shall be to thy husband,” the word Hebrew word for “desire” does not refer to a romantic attraction, but rather a contentious wish to “overcome or defeat another.”[9] In addition, the “rule” of the husband depicted in Hebrew version of the phrase is not benevolent but controlling.[10] The sense of this terrible situation is well captured in a modern Bible translation: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”[11] As further evidence for this interpretation, note that the same Hebrew terms for “desire” and “rule” that describe a relationship of competition and rancor will later reappear in God’s warning to Cain: “Satan desireth to have thee; … And thou shalt rule over him.”[12]
@@jackiechoate6163 That sounds different than Dennis' explanation. His Genesis Rational Bible book is where I got this information. Hmmm...so a woman desiring her one husband who would not be hanging with other women might not work with this interpretation. I need to do more homework.
@@jackiechoate6163 I did read this. Not sure. We have two groups (Prager and this group) who know Hebrew saying different things. But I think this makes sense and I could go with this interpretation of Gen 3:16. I find it interesting that the description provided coming from the obviously LDS Interpreter Foundation allows no room for polygamy. Their description of this descriptive conflict between men and women, while still keeping everyone's equality, would fall apart with multiple wives.
I have a problem with the whole "10 virgins" in section 132, we sound just like the other religion with men waiting to get their virgins, it is embarrassing and i can't bring myself to share the gospel anymore
I've started encouraging people to read the Book of Mormon and NOT join the church (unless they feel that is the path God wants them to take) because they are corrupt/in apostasy. They can come closer to Christ by reading and living what is taught in the BofM than any other book, so it is still good to invite people to do that.
Good podcast! I loved the analogy of the vacuum bag poured into a cake and that it destroys the whole cake. It is so true that polygamy is baked in to the Brigham LDS church. It is in everything it is in the hierarchy. It is in the temple. It is in how we do the church on a daily basis. if we get rid of section 132, that is just the beginning, there are so many aspects of polygamy within the church that it would have to be a major overhaul. The other thing that made me think was the comment was made that initially we find some thing abhorrent like polygamy, and then overtime and being exposed to it more and more we become desensitized and then accept it. I feel like this is the same thing that happens with the temple. Our conscience tells us that something isn’t right the first time we go in and we feel uncomfortable and it feels weird and not right , but they say just keep going and you’ll feel better about it basically saying keep going and you’ll be desensitized, so it won’t bother you anymore, but the light of Christ our conscience and the spirit initially told us what was the truth of the matter.
It's interesting how we each get different things out of the wording in the temple. Regarding the law of chastity, I think the wording change from "shall not have...except with" to now say "shall have...only with" is important. I believe marital intimacy is necessary to draw couples together in complete unity as God intends. The old wording made marital intimacy seem like an unimportant worldly activity completely unrelated to our exaltation. The new wording makes it a commandment that brings us together and prepares us for exaltation.
My guess is they are probably teaching this to children because of members like me and my daughter who were horrified to learn of the many wives principle later in life. They're hoping to inoculate children. In my opinion though it's not appropriate to teach young children about an alternative family relationship, especially without parental consent. So it was a mistake for the church to withhold this information from me, it was a mistake for me to withhold this from my daughter, and the church is making a serious mistake dumping this on young children. Anyway you look at it, no one wins!!!
Michelle, I and my daughter, who do not just read the scriptures but we study them in depth and we are so so on board. We know scripturally and in our hearts polygamy is not justified by a loving heavenly father who cares about his daughters. I just watched your show with Cathy Bence and I would like to mention 2 points number one, when people refer to the scripture in Samuel of Nathan, supposedly by God's will gave him all of Solomon's wives and concubines to support polygamy, it is a false premise. To begin with It was the legal procedure at that time that all that belonged to a former king would be given to his successor to be cared for and manage not to become their wives, This is confirmed in the Torah as there is no mention of God giving the new king the servants or wives of the farmer king. Point two, since God's original law was for a man and a woman to cling to each other and none other, I took the new language in the temple to mean that law,. Especially since it is singular and not plural. Plus the fact I don't think there is any way there is going to be so many more women in the celestial Kingdom when you consider all the young men who have died fighting for their country to support It being the law of polygamy, God bless you and those who are making their voices heard In your efforts to see a horrible wrong righted.
At 13 minutes, Kathy says that her daughter is trying to get a temple sealing, but it seems like what she means is that her daughter was trying to get a temple divorce.
Perhaps, but it came when they changed 2 other things: women anointed in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and the law of chastity being changed from the singular husband and wife to "those." Strange coincidence.
As I have mentioned in the past, I do disagree with you Michelle and believe that all LDS 'prophets' who claimed or currently claim eternal polygamy is from God, are false prophets, full stop🚫. This is one of the reasons why I left the LDS church entirely. However, I do think it is good you are discussing this. Kudos to you.
I agree with you. That is the definition of a prophet. They speak truth and talk to God. If they are speaking false doctrine, then by definition they are NOT a prophet of God. ❤ we can’t have it both ways.
Agreed. They are administrators and boardroom Mormons. Nelson doesn’t believe a word of it. He just loves his job. However!! When one accepts we are the church that is the prodigal son staying is easy. The good son/RLDS held on to that self-righteousness and got over confident and imploded. We just need to make sure we keep it real and keep what’s left of the faith in good conscience.
The Q15 are NOT Prophets, Seers or revelators. The Church does NOT have the fullness of the priesthood. There is no doubt that the Church, the Bringhamite Church, is nothing less than a break off of the Church organized by Joseoh. intentionally and originally through Joseph Smith the only true Proghet in modern day. All so called "prophets" starting with Brigham Young forward were not called by God according to God's pattern that He established as given in the scriptures. Polygamy is not doctrinal. It is a man made BY policy carried forward by false teachers prophets and apostles.
So, we keep hearing all about the rough rides that can occur in plural marriages. What about the ones that were happy and harmonic?? Well, at least as unified percentage wise with monogamous marriages being both adequate and broken? Mountains out of molehills.........
“While it is certainly theoretically possible that there are some positive features associated with polygyny, all of the cases we have heard remain anecdotal in nature. We were not able to find _a single one_ that could be supported at an aggregate level statistically… "The findings are clear, consistent, and statistically robust across the board. In fact, the results are the kind of thing most social scientists strive for but almost never find in the course of their careers. If these findings were about something not related to women, chances are that they would be treated as revolutionary in international relations theory; indeed, the effects are much stronger than those supporting the notion of the democratic peace that has spawned an entire cottage industry of inquiry. I leave it to the reader to ponder why powerful effects regarding the treatment of women on the health and security of states do not receive such extensive attention” (McDermott, Rose. The Evils of Polygyny: Evidence of Its Harm to Women, Men, and Society, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2018: 23).
The New and Everlasting Covenant is forgiveness of sins on faith in Jesus Christ with repentance via a broken heart and a contrite spirit and the law being fulfilled. The N&EC is NOT about marriage. AT ALL!! More works based salvation.
Cockroach in the Sundae? Just looking at the one with deep focus does not mean it is the only one. Usually there are tons more if you see one. Maybe there are more of them than Sundae but we cannot see them since we do not look or want to look. With these bugs there is never just 1, usually there are many. Normally if you find a cockroach you bring in the fumigation as the whole thing is infested. The house looks fine but the walls and cracks are full or many more. Just because we are so focused on one, or we do not want to look for others does not mean they are not there. A good tree gives good fruit and a corrupt tree produces corrupt fruit. There is not a mixture of corrupt and good fruit.
If only you got 22 minutes into the episode you would understand how it was used. But you’re just going to rant from looking at the title? Quick to anger.
@ I enjoy her videos and believe Joseph and Hyrum. I have videos on that. So no anger at all. Just saying that you cannot pick polygamy and think that it the only tare or cockroach. If it is one there are tons more issues.
This was my personal experience. For 30 years of my life it was the only cockroach I saw. But that was just me and I realize polygamy is a non-issue for some and just the tip of the iceberg for others.
@ thanks. My actual concern is many see polygamy coming from Brigham and it did. Yet they don’t say then the church after Brigham is not Joseph’s church. They cannot seem to go there. They want polygamy out but church in. How strange since it is not logical. I moved away and stick with Joseph and reject Brigham. It is logical. Now some may not like either. But it is not logical to hold to church and throw out Brigham.
@@FleeingBabylon-Now I think I understand, but whatever someone's views on the church and their authority, my point is that this polygamy teaching, which is still be part of the church, is causing harm. Any decent person, including those who had long given up on the church back in the 70s, should have been relieved when the church finally denounced their harmful, racist teachings on blacks. Whatever our views on this church organization today--authority or no authority--it would be better for everyone if this damaging doctrine was removed.
26:58 Kathy Bence, spot on about Exodus 20:7. The problem is in the context of this discussion you are denouncing what God approves as evil. When God says in Exodus 21:10 "if a man takes another wife (specifically a slave wife) he is not to reduce the food, clothing, or sexual rights of the first. So if a man actually did this today who are we to call that evil? Don't like that one because it has slavery? Ok how about Exodus 22:16-17 where if a man (no martial status specified) has sex with an unmarried woman he is required to pay the bride price of virgins and marry the woman if her father consents. If a married man does this today you all call it adultery. You are doing what Exodus 20:7 condemns by saying that what God has approved is evil. You also said that the Torah couldn't have been written by wicked men because it denounces those very same wicked men. So you've refuted yourself. 28:23 But that is who God is. Ezekiel Chapter 23, Isaiah Chapter 54, Jeremiah Chapters 3,31, & 33 God says He is married to two wives. He has a covenant bond with TWO nations, Israel and Judah. This sets up the very framework for the new covenant and the restoration of Israel. If we reject polygyny as part of the nature of God then we by default reject one aspect of the mission of Jesus.
Who has to follow God's laws and who gets justification to break them? Or, More sandy foundations?! Here is a thought-provoking comparison, raising questions about the nature of morality, divine command, and the way religious texts portray individuals and their actions. Let’s explore the contrast between Cain and Abel versus Nephi and Laban, addressing the nuances in their actions, motivations, and how they are framed in scripture. Cain vs. Abel The Story (Genesis 4:1-16): Cain's Actions: Cain killed his brother Abel out of jealousy and anger, as God accepted Abel’s offering but rejected Cain’s. Cain committed the murder while Abel was conscious and afterward showed a lack of remorse, famously replying to God, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Genesis 4:9). Moral Framing: Cain is regarded as evil because: His actions were motivated by envy and self-interest. He knowingly disobeyed God’s commandments, acting out of his own will. He displayed a lack of repentance, focusing more on the consequences of his punishment than the act itself. Symbolism: Cain is often seen as the archetype of selfishness and rebellion against God’s order. Abel, in contrast, is portrayed as righteous and faithful, willingly offering his best to God. Nephi vs. Laban The Story (1 Nephi 3-4): Nephi's Actions: Nephi was commanded by God to kill Laban while Laban was unconscious and incapacitated due to drunkenness. Nephi justified the act by emphasizing its necessity: To obtain the brass plates (sacred records needed for his people’s survival and spiritual preservation). To prevent Laban from harming him and his brothers if he awakened (1 Nephi 4:13). After the killing, Nephi: Stripped Laban of his clothes to impersonate him and deceive his household. Left Laban’s body unburied, leaving others to deal with it in the morning. Points of Moral Complexity Nephi’s Actions Aggravated Murder: Nephi’s act of killing Laban could be classified as aggravated murder by modern legal standards, especially since Laban was unconscious and defenseless. He also engaged in deception (wearing Laban’s clothes and impersonating him). Divine Command: Nephi justified the killing as a direct command from God, which raises the moral question: Does divine command absolve one of the moral weight of an action like murder? Keeping Secrets: The text does not detail whether Nephi confessed this act beyond his brothers and Zoram. This may reflect a burden he carried silently. Cain’s Actions Conscious Killing: Cain’s murder of Abel was premeditated and carried out in anger, without provocation from Abel. Post-Murder Actions: Despite burying Abel’s body, Cain displayed a lack of repentance, challenging God with his indifference: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Scriptural and Theological Context Nephi: The Book of Mormon consistently frames Nephi as a righteous hero who was acting out of faith and obedience. 1 Nephi 4:13: Nephi rationalizes the killing by stating, “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.” From this perspective, Nephi’s actions, while severe, are justified as serving a greater divine purpose. Cain: In the Bible, Cain’s actions are seen as entirely self-serving and rebellious, with no redeeming purpose. His failure to accept God’s guidance (to improve his offerings) compounded his guilt. Ethical and Narrative Reflection The portrayal of Cain vs. Nephi underscores the role of narrative bias in scripture: Cain: Written as a cautionary tale about envy and disobedience to God. Nephi: Written as an example of obedience and the complexities of divine commands. Both accounts challenge the reader to consider intent, motivation, and divine authority: Did Nephi genuinely act out of faith, or did he justify his actions to himself? Could Cain have redeemed himself had he repented sincerely? Conclusion The contrasting portrayals of Cain and Nephi highlight the importance of narrative context, intent, and perceived divine authority in shaping moral judgments. While Cain is depicted as irredeemably selfish and unrepentant, Nephi is framed as a righteous hero acting in obedience to God’s will. The moral complexity of Nephi’s actions invites reflection on whether divine command can justify acts that would otherwise be considered sinful by societal standards, leaving readers to wrestle with questions of justice, obedience, and personal accountability.
Polygamy is going against the word of God. It is one of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shall not commit adultery", Mormonism is big time polygamy, from the beginning to the end.
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had many wives, in the beginning, and Mormonism believes that men are sealed to their wives for eternity when they marry here on earth, some men's wives die and then they acquire another wife and are sealed to her and the chain keeps going, some men can have three sealed wives to live with in the eternities. This is polygamy from the beginning to the end.
Just the facts... Whether or not Joseph Smith ever practiced or preached polygamy is entirely irrelevant. Joseph was released as Prophet and President of the Church upon his death. Then it was Brigham Young who became the Lord's anointed, and he preached polygamy. Then came President Wilford Woodruff and put a stop to it. And that's all there is to it and the end of the story (at least until God says differently through His servants, the prophets). As a male, I refuse to feel guilty for something my ancestors did. (My very existence is due to their obedience.) Following the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the words of His living prophets has always been the "eye of the needle" and the key to salvation.
Only follow the prophet if you have received confirmation of what they teach by the Holy Ghost, if you don’t follow this then your leaders become idols and you worship them over god. See below: 23. And in this thing did the Lord teach us all a great lesson. It is true that the Lord does call out Prophets from among the people. But, let not any people begin in the belief that the calling out makes a man not a man. The Prophet of God is given great gifts of the Spirit. Yea, he may speak with the tongues of Angels and with them, and, if he has the gift of the seer, he may translate strange languages. And behold, the Prophet leads and guides the people in the will and work of the Lord also. But, know this all you who read these things and ponder them in your hearts, the Prophet is fallible. He is not perfect, and his counsels are not perfect. And, though we count ourselves blessed because the Lord does see fit to call and raise up unto us His Prophets, it is because He does this that we feel constrained to subject all things unto the confirmation of the Holy Ghost, howbeit even the words of a Prophet. 24. Behold, the Lord has spoken it: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Wherefore, make not gods of your Prophets! For they will be false gods and idols. For, even if they be called of God and appointed, yea, even if they be anointed by the very finger of God, they are yet simple men and you will have made unto yourselves gods that shall fall. For there are but few men unto whom the Lord has given power over death, and they are Ayohahn his beloved Apostle, and Nayfee, Layee, and Tsimohthih (Timothy), who were brothers and among the twelve He chose when He came to the people gathered about the temple in the Hit- ah-yet-noht Pah. But all others shall fall by the shaft of death, just as you and I must likewise fall. And when we fall, our bodies shall go back into the earth, as with all living things. And, notwithstanding our spirits live on, in accordance with that great covenant and plan by which this world was created, yet are we corruptible, and yet does the idol rust and the rot take us. Wherefore, when you make gods of the servants of God, you cast their ashes in His face. Will he hold you sinless in this? 25. I say unto you, He will hold you accountable. For, has He not commanded each of us to pray always? And does this not also apply to every word that has proceeded out of the mouths of the Prophets? For, I ask you, how know you that I ever lived? Now, I write this unto my own descendents. Wherefore, I desire that you have a remembrance of me and of my doing. But, how know you that these writings truly come to you from me, my children? No man may confirm it. It is only by the confirmation of the Holy Ghost that you may know that I truly wrote these things unto you. And behold, it is by that power which the Holy Ghost possesses that you may have all knowledge, for, it is by that power that the Sahnhempeht (Christ) did take upon Himself all things. And it is by that same power that He may give the same to us. Yea, it is by that power that all things may be brought to our remembrance, both those things which we sometime knew of our own conscience and experience, as well as all things known because of the experiences of others. Yea, even all that the Father has may be given to us by this same power. 26. Wherefore, why seek we to make all things sure by the voice and word of men? There is but one way to know of a surety that a thing is true, whether spoken by a man or men, or by a Prophet, or by an Angel, or even by the very voice of Sahnhempeht (Christ) Himself! Yea, I make so bold as to say that I would gladly speak face to face with God, and hold myself blessed in every way. But behold, having thus communed in a most holy way, I would retire to my chamber, and bend my knee and my will, and ask most humbly that the Holy Ghost might confirm the thing unto my soul. 27. Does this sound ill? To some it may speak of doubt. But, I shall importune the Lord in this thing, for He has commanded it. And I would rather He be importuned than that His anger be kindled against me. 28. Yea, for behold, even the elect shall be deceived. Even the Prophets of God may act and speak betimes as men and fathers sometimes do out of the earthy and carnal concerns of their hearts. Yea, what man does not feel strongly the needs and responsibilities of his stewardship? Do not expect them to be any different than yourselves, and, if the Lord does allow men to be fallible and to err, but to repent, so much more ought you to allow the same. Wherefore, the Lord has counseled us: Judge not. For with that same judgment wherewith you judge, so too shall you be judged also. 29. Behold, I say unto you who shall receive these things and ponder them, You shall live in a time when men do seek to elevate the Prophets unto that status wherein they may speak no error nor act in any mean thing. This is a great pitfall to the righteous. For, such men shall make regulations that begin to deny the right of every son or daughter of God to seek the confirmation of the Holy Ghost. Yea, in your day, if a man hears the words of some Prophet and, seeking the confirmation of the Holy Ghost, fails to receive it, but receives instead a witness that the utterance is false or misguided, behold, he shall be brought up before the counsels and he shall be persecuted for having received such a witness. And they shall scourge him bitterly with their words and shall even cast him out from among them.
@will.i.am0991 Of course, you're correct. All commandments of God are subject to personal confirmation by the Holy Ghost, and no one is suggesting otherwise. However, those who suggest Joseph Smith had no part or hand in polygamy, are cherry picking Church history. These same folks often blame Brigham Young for polygamy and refuse to accept him as the next Church leader and Prophet of the Lord. This is a slippery slope that leads to appostasy. Never more than 20-30% of "Mormons" were polygamist, so obviously members did make up their own minds.
@will.i.am0991 No one is suggesting that the words of the Prophets are not subject to individual confirmation by the Holy Ghost. And since only about 20-30% of "Mormons" were ever polygamist, members did in fact, use their own judgement and inspiration. We do not worship anyone but the Lord God or follow any person or thing blindly. (I see you've perfected your copy and paste skills.)
Marquita - Yeah, there's some interesting things posted on the church's site. Have you read the upcoming lesson plan for our children in primary on November 16, 2025? There's two parts: * November 10-16: "I Have Seen Your Sacrifices in Obedience" * (supplemental) (Scripture Stores) 1831-1890 Plural Marriage (with cartoon imagery) As TH-cam comments don't allow links, I put in the full titles of each
I honestly don't understand why you stay and tear down a church you believe went into apostasy, instead of supporting the movement (RLDS) who have been teaching these things since the 1860's.
I don't believe the church "went into apostasy." I want to be in my church, and I believe God wants me to be in this church. That didn't mean I must or should agree with everything my church has done or said. I hope most members find some things from our church history troubling. The RLDS church no longer teaches that Joseph was innocent of polygamy. They tend to not view him as a prophet. The LDS Church is my spiritual home, and where I have come to know God, and where I want to raise my children and worship with my ward, and much more. My son just returned from his mission this week. We put forth so much effort to try to bring people to our church. It is a shame that members of our church try to get people to leave.
@MichelleBStone No. Community of Christ has gone the direction you mentioned. There are many traditional RLDS people organized in Restoration Branches, of which Richard and Pamela Price were part. But I suspect you know that as you are using their research.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Sec 132 does not command that all Latter Day Saints today must or should participate in polygamy. Stop the madness!! :>) It was given to certain members of the times.
@@kathybence Yes, ma'am. The chapter is directed specifically to Joseph Smith and any who would also agree to enter into an everlasting covenant of plural marriage at the time. That time is not today nor was it a command forced upon all Saints when it was written. That's it. The chapter also specifies that those who do shall maintain the covenant of plural marriage righteously or suffer the consequence such as King David did whom overstepped his bounds of righteousness. :>)
@@godsoffspring4195 LOL, I've already provided a lot! Your reading comprehension is your responsibility. It really is surprising how bad polygamy apologists are at reading comprehension and critical thought. But it is obviously by choice, since they want to defend the indefensible. So there's not much that can be done about it.
24:00 - Oh yeah! Torah discussion, that gets my fingers typing. Though side not I will say that the common thread throughout the discussion up to this point is that neither Michelle nor Kathy are presenting a Biblical understanding of marriage. Michelle and I have discussed previously but her view of what marriage is, is not scriptural. She presents a feminist egalitarian view of marriage, not the scriptural marriage as a mirror of God's relationship with His people. Anyway getting side tracked: Denise Prager can sometimes be a quack when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Kathy: "getting mixed up in polygamy not because God commands." Yes, because it is not required for God to explicitly command a man to take another wife for him to do so. Kathy: "because they're lacking faith" Nope that's a misunderstanding of the story of Abraham and Sarah. Sarah acted in faith giving Hagar, not because she lacked it. Kathy: "people lied to them" Yet Jacob willingly chose to marry again. Kathy: "angry wives" Read the story again. The wives are not angry with each other. Genesis 30:13 (NIV): "Then Leah said, ‘How happy I am! The women will call me happy.’ So she named him Asher." Kathy: "It always means unhappiness" It doesn't. You're reading that into the text where its not there as evidenced in part by the scripture I just quoted. Kathy: "this is not what God wants" You have no Biblical evidence to support this claim. God gave many commandments that if followed result in polygyny. God didn't ever condemn the ancients for polygyny. David was only condemned for adultery when he took another man's wife. The Biblical text says Joash did what was right in the sight of God when Jehoiada took to wives for him. That statement that polygyny is not what God wants is refuted through out the Biblical text.
"Polygamy was never commanded" I'm so sick and tired of hearing that lame excuse yet God "GAVE" King David's wives to another man who would treat those wives properly and He sent Hagar beck into a polygamous life with Sarah and Abraham. Polygamy was so common in the old days by both righteous and non righteous men and women, God didn't have to command it. The real focus should be why God never reprimanded men like Abraham for doing it. :>)
The same reason God didn't reprimand people for having slaves. The fact that he didn't condemn an action does not equate to him condoning an action. The real focus should be on what do we have recorded as God's design for marriage? Which we know is monogamy And who was the first person recorded to practice polygamy? Lamech who was a worshipper of Satan and called Master Mahan.
What we have is, God did not condemn polygamy in the early days. In fact, Moses wrote "If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights" Lamech was mentioned because two branches of people became of it via two wives. Not specifically to condemn plural marriage, but nice try. So was Abraham. One righteous branch covenanted with God and the other not. Again, there was a need for Abraham having two wives. There was some very good reasons for proper polygamy in the old days for righteous men. One reason would be.... they would have been outbred by non righteous people. It's not rocket science at all. Additionally. Not all slavery was unjust. Many people chose to live and serve under the wing of righteous kings and leaders. Not so much evil rulers. Now you know why God did not specifically condemn it. Unfortunately, evil kings abused it and God indeed condemned that. Ask Moses and the Egyptians. :>)
Your argument doesn't work. 132 claims repeatedly, yet falsely, that God commanded Abraham's polygamy. That is factually incorrect, and is one of many insurmountable errors in what is supposed to be a "revelation." This is a problem that cannot be overcome. Polygamy is not of God, and the polygamist parts are 132 are not revelation from God.
@@MichelleBStone Everybody keeps ranting about 132. I've long overcome the problem(s) you are having and so have many others. To understand that God accepted righteous plural marriages throughout the early days is clear even if sec. 132 was never written or even the Book of Mormon for that matter, including Jacob 2:30. It's not rocket science, Michelle. If the Lord did not condemn the OT people from plural procreation... He willed it at the time and if or when He had a problem with any abuse within plural families... He said so. King David being the first when He went outside of his household in lust and murdered for it. The Lord took his wives away and gave them to another man who obviously never had the same problem David developed. If polygamous unions were never ever of God, He would have said so from the beginning of time. Your reasoning is flawed, sis. Trying to convince those of us who know better is like trying to tells us God never planned on or accepted the fact that Adam and Eve were going to partake of the forbidden fruit when He knew very well it was prerequisite, would happen and needed. Therefore He willed it. All times He has said "OTHERWISE" 😇
I think the fundamentalists are the true followers of Joseph Smith. They ARE the truly, concrete followers of the Book of Mormon. I understand the fundamentalists more than I understand the present-day members of the church of Jesus Christ of ladder day saints. To take out plural marriage is to deny that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet.
@@kathybenceThere’s no way he has or he never would have made such an obviously ignorant comment. Thanks for the enlightening discussion, Kathy! Truly! I watched all your videos. Please keep them coming. 🥰
@@lindsayashton1385 Seen one, you've basically seen em all. Although I don't agree with half of what Cameron said, Michelle's videos are evidence of only one main thing. You are all deniers of the fact(s) with tickled ears of apostacy.
Michelle used the title I use in my videos. Since I was on her channel, and my videos address polygamy this way, I guess you have problem with how I address polygamy. How should one address a topic they find evil and degrading?
I really appreciated this episode, this is my mom! 😊
When the religious fanaticism is removed it’s obvious how wrong polygamy is. In the church the brainwashing, allegiance to leaders and shame associated with having differing opinions is what creates so many people believing these absurd teachings. People that otherwise have great critical thinking skills turn them off when church is involved.
Thanks mom, for having the courage to stand up for good- even when the consequence might be fellow members questioning your faith. But the real question is, who are they putting their faith in? Probably men and not God.
The people you are describing are William Law and Francis Higbee. And their newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor.
Why do women and men follow charismatic religious men instead of Jesus?
I was like so many women who simply trusted when taking my endowments and marriage sealing 45 years ago. About 25 years ago, while doing sealings, I started to pay attention to the words the sealer was saying and realized that I was instructed to receive my husband unto myself and then give myself unto him. But when it came time for his covenant, he was only instructed to receive me unto himself. There was no "giving" himself to me but only receiving, receiving, receiving.... That's when I knew I had made polygamy covenants that I never realized at my wedding. It has been a wonderful blessing to know that this supposed doctrine was never from God.
Yes, it is wonderful to know this is not of God, yet so upsetting to see even more camouflaged polygamy covenants in the temple. I haven't been involved with sealings for many years so I wasn't aware of this.
So happy to learn of a new TH-cam channel, Reasons to Rescind. Thanks!!
Anything that is being done in secret should automatically have a red flag on it.
I’ve often wondered just how we can let our voices be heard about these important issues and questions we have? We can write a letter or an email to church headquarters but it will never be responded to or considered. We can talk to our local leaders, which is what we are told to do, but will they actually push our concerns up the line? I find they don’t. They are good people and try to address our concerns, but unless our leaders have the same concerns then nothing will ever happen… also all the leaders are men, and in general they don’t tend to have a problem with anything the church does... or If they admit that do they get released. It seems like an impenetrable wall.
It feels that way. As I said, the precedent that makes me consider that our voices will be heard is the blacks and the priesthood issue. Two years after I came back from my mission, after telling black investigators that their blessings would be limited, suddenly that changed. The church felt the pressure and made the change. Who knows? But I emailed my stake president about the recent primary material adding plural marriage. I asked him to pass this up the ladder. He said it would come back to him and he'd be asked to counsel with me. My response was I want him to pass this on so that my voice will be added to the voice of others who are also unhappy and perhaps leaders will see the need for change. He said he'd forward my email on. We'll see...
Yes it seems there is a communication breach and it is quite frustrating. I often wonder though.. it seems youTube has opened up a bridge between that gap. I know that those in the leadership do notice the voices spoken on TH-cam and so technically the more voices leaking on a subject the more the world as well as members changes their views and will be seen.
*correction: the more voices SPEAKing on a subject
Thank you for another amazing episode, I'm so glad you never gave up on this channel. You will be the change - it only takes one small voice to become thousands!
The Prophet Nephi said it best-over and over again. Look at all of the references to Plain and Precious Truths in the Concordance. Plural Marriage is not Plain nor precious. But who am I? President Nelson has invited all of us to be Gospel Scholars. However, according to the haughty scholars at Scripture Central, I am just a junk scientist, a Mormon hack who is not credentialed. Therefore, Plain and Precious must be explained to me as complex, hard-to-understand concepts. LOVE THIS PODCAST. Michelle, you are a weekly guest lecturer/teacher in my "man cave".
This judgement comes from your personal bias informed by culture and not the spirit of God.
Romans 1;22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,
Why is polygyny not plain or precious? Just because it makes you uncomfortable? Because it doesn't fit in the modern paradigm?
@@michaelt.fernandez6846 The principle and the practice of plural marriage created the House of Israel. Your personal moral “dislikes” can’t tell us whether the principle of plural marriage is a plain and precious doctrine.
It was several years ago when I woke up to many of the false traditions in the LDS church after I prayed to God to please, please reveal to me if there was any belief I had that I believed was true with all my heart but was not true. Polygamy was first on that list! I was introduced to the idea of polygamy not being from God but introduced into the church by Brigham young through a book called “The Secret Chamber-spiritual wifery and the Doctrine of Christ” by Val Brinkerhoff. It sure did shake up my belief in polygamy…. but as I pondered and paid attention to the spirit working in me It came to me to ask God for a second witness. It wasn’t long after when random things would be revealed to me about this being a false principle. And as those would cross my path I took each one to God in prayer and now I’m flooded with so many wonderful “second witnesses”. Thank you for all of the work you women do to spread this truth. What I feel I have learned about Gods truth is that if the fruits of a principle don’t produce joy and happiness in our everyday lives and relationships and can be transparent and understood by a child and loved by a child’s pure heart then it is of God.
"The Secret Chamber" book was one of the first I read on this also. He had a lot of interesting ideas I had never considered. That book helped wake me up!
Michelle, kathy, one of the best podcasts ever on this subject matter.❤
At 41 minutes… “if you want me to provide for you, you have to marry me”. But THAT didn’t even work either! Even those wives that were married polygamously to some of early Utah’s most wealthy men ended up having to work to support themselves and their children.
Exactly. I was raised by a widow. The idea that she should remarry so good men could help her was always repulsive and anti-Christ to me. A lot of good men stepped up and helped her and her 6 young children. None of them had to have sex with my mom in exchange for Their service, either. 🤮
The original 1835 and 1844 version of D&C the new the everlasting covenant isn't connected to polygamy not even marriage.
The new and everlasting covenant is our own personal relationship with God and the covenants we've made with him. It's beautifully written by Joseph Smith in his books. Brigham perverted everything.
This was a great episode 👌. You both did a fascistic job
Thank you Karhy and Michelle. This is another great episode!
This is fantastic! I love this conversation, thank you:) She is right how many people don't want to even touch the Book of Mormon because of the bad example of polygamy = taking God's name in vain. Since leaving the church, I have been much more bold in sharing the Book of Mormon with others, and sharing that it's for all people, like the Bible isn't just for Catholics, and that they can read it and believe it without having to join any particular organization. I hope as more and more people have this perspective that more people will read it and love it and come closer to Christ.
Another great podcast Michelle! ❤
Yay! Super excited to put a face to this awesome lady!
I didn't tear out 132, but I did cross out the sections that are part of "doctrines of devils". That felt good.
I did not know Ben McClintock is a polygamist!! ugh... so sad.
I live in central UT and see polygamist women all the time. I really wish I could help them see that Joseph taught MONOGAMY only... if they knew that, many of them could get out of those situations-maybe? I was on a path of thinking the LDS church was in apostasy because they weren't living that "law", until I learned better. People don't go back far enough, gotta go all the way back to Joseph to learn the truth. Not going to find it in John Taylor or Brigham Young!!!
@michelle
@~37:00 your description of the deceptive spirit of polygamy was DEAD on. I want to add though that it is currently in its death throes and KNOWS it, because unlike most of the oblivious world, it knows Who is coming.
I'm also in southern Utah and yes the polygamist are everywhere!!! It's so heartbreaking!!
We know Brian Hales is an undercover polygamist. I wouldn't be surprised if a good portion of our members were undercover polygamist.
My daughter's boss was an escaped male polygamist. He told many horror stories
He probably didn't have to do much to escape as an equal number of males to females is a threat to these groups.
Can you share more about why you know Brian is an undercover polygamist?
Yes please, do tell
My understanding is that Brian is actually only sealed to one wife -- Laura, who passed away. He and his first wife were divorced, and his current wife is sealed to her deceased husband.
@@MichelleBStone Why do you delete comments that go against your narrative?
Absolutely agree that the polygamy covenants expected shouldn't be hidden from the women. In my life now I know that Brigham just made it all up after he hijacked the church after Joseph was murdered.
I first listened to Kathy on an episode of the Iron Rod Podcast, which lead me to her blog. I reached out to her and let her know about Michelle's new channel at the time. Glad to see Kathy on. Look forward to the episode.
Kathy,
I wonder what the guys from the Iron Rod Podcast think of this content? They no longer blog or put out episodes.
Jackie!! Yes you did suggest I listen to Michelle. Thank you! I have no idea what happened to the Iron Rod guys. I know once they went through the Book of Mormon and D&C, they felt they'd covered what was needed. There was plenty of other Bible commentary. I'm still grateful for their insights though. They helped me measure doctrine with scripture. We can hope that we're inspired to know things, but that sometimes proves to be mistaken. A lot of early saints felt God inspired them to be polygamist. They should have been measuring that against Book of Mormon scripture.
Brigham did not hate polygamy. He loved it. He was a liar and followed he who was a liar from the beginning.
There are 15 women in the church who can speak out about polygamy and directly influence church leaders to make a policy/doctrinal change, and do so without any fear of church discipline. They know who they are.
I wonder if they actually do have that much freedom?
Their only limitation is their own fear of what man can do. I believe Wendy has already been a huge influence on her husband as evidenced by so many alterations in previously sexist language in the endowment, inclusion of women in counsels etc.
There is more than one cockroach in the ice cream sunday!
Right, but since I picked this cute mormonad to describe my worst concern, I assigned polygamy as the biggest cockroach 😉
@michelle
Jesus got very emotional in the 3rd Nephi account at the same moment when He declared His “joy was full”. Belittling people because they are “emotional” when it aligns STRONGLY with their heart (like your emotion ALWAYS is), is anti Christ.
Don’t you dare stop being you!! ❤❤❤
❤️❤️❤️
I love this comment!
This was powerful! A thought: if we are making a covenant in the temple by subterfuge, then we are not held to it. Those responsible for it would be held accountable before God for perverting His word. I guess what I am saying is that if it is a lie and goes against God's word it is meaningless. When the Savior comes, what will the brethren who are responsible for this, do when they face Him or will they not get the chance. I think these men better wake up before it is "everlastingly too late"!
"A covenant in the temple by subterfuge" is a good description of how I felt. Since I don't think anyone has the power to make women eternal polygamous wives and God doesn't have that wish, I don't think any of us will be held to it. But, I agree, it doesn't seem like a good choice to be behind this scheme. All I can do is decide the best course for me and follow Michelle's advice and pray for whoever might have the inclination and influence to change this.
God is the alpha and all powerful, so prayer is absolutely the best and first thing all of us can do. ❤️ And yet with all that power God is a just God and our Father who loves us, loves purity, and loves the hearts of his daughters. ❤️❤️ He will plead out cause and provide miracles when we feel all hope is lost and turn to him.
Michelle,
This this was a great episode.
I appreciate how your guest demonstrated the bad effects of polygamy without being distracted (and discrediting her excellent message) into offering a firm opinion as to which fallible person authored the troubling parts of 132.
"The law" is section 42.
Yes, it it is the law and includes one wife only. But Section 132.has its own law: the new and everlasting covenant. Vs 6. And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
Oh pleez can you hear yourself. Grow a pair.@@kathybence
The New and Everlasting Covenant is one man one woman married with God's authority. A man cannot live this law if he needs justification to live the lesser principle (which I believe is not righteous, but of man only) which is what D&C 132 is all about. It is talking about God's true law and how maybe a man is justified if he happens to live the other law pertaining to the commandments of men. Look at it with new eyes and you will see clearly. 👍
The lesser principle meaning polygamy. Think of animal behavior. Maybe lions live this way, but they are of a lesser kingdom.
@@stacihymas4539 Are you saying 132 is talking about a lesser law? Perhaps I misunderstand. I think 132 is describing what it claims is the highest law: the law of the new and everlasting covenant which is the doctrine of having many wives and concubines. 132 tells me the only way to the highest kingdom is through polygamy. Of course, the new and everlasting covenant described everywhere else (without that exact wording though) is talking about something other than polygamy. 132 contradicts other scriptures.
27:50. "I like to gossip too, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing" Thanks Kathy. You hit the nail right on the head. That is exactly what's going on here. :>)
Yep, it's stereotypical but sometimes women like to gossip and men like to sleep with multiple partners. This was not gossip though. This was defending the truth that men sleeping with multiple women is plain old adultery.
Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse
I agree. So does the Lord but gossip is still gossip. I'm not off sleeping with multiple women nor is anyone else I personally know so you must mean some other men somewhere else. That's good. Adultery?? I thought we were talking about plural marriage.
The Lord said that desiring another woman to lust after her is adultery. In the older terms when the Bible was written to "lust" meant to desire for yourself. It was not actually related to sexual desire. But either way, if you want another for yourself when you have one to cleave to that would be adultery.
@@stacihymas4539 Well there ya go! Righteous men who partook in proper plural marriage never desired wives unto themselves. They did it to raise up seed unto the Lord. Context..... context. 😇
Well there ya go Staci! Righteous men who partook in proper plural marriage never desired wives unto themselves. They did it to raise up seed unto the Lord. If the did, such as King David fell into lust... God took his wives away and gave them to another man who took on David's wives for God, not himself.
Are you familiar with The Ancient Tradition podcast? Or the book Beloved Bridegroom?
I think you make good points- i also shake my head when people who i think of as reasonable dismis you as being simply emotional, for all the reasons you feel the injustice and insensitivty of that view of your work.
That said, I have a renewed love of the temple when i view it through the ancient symbolism, and keeping Hebrew wedding traditions in mind. Sometimes when we see differences between what men and women do in the temple, if we look at it through the lense of men being presentative of Christ, and women being representative of "the church", it illuminates the meaning.
Not sure that applies with the specific words you discuss in this episode. But sometimes it helps.
The Hebrew Wedding tradition is so beautifully rich with meanjng- I love it. Understanding it has helped me feel more confident in Jesus Christ and Elohim.
Your work is a difficult work- I appreciate your willingness to do it.
Also, I nearly cried when Kathy told the story of her son in law tearing out 132.
I love the symbolism in the temple but I’m struggling with the “NEED” for the temple. Can I not be sealed to Christ without it?
@americathebeautiful9613 All I can say is take your questions and feelings to God. He has much better answers than I.
I am grateful every day for increasing insights and revelation. Things that once brought pain and confusion seem clear and easily understood. New things bring pain and confusion. Based on my past experience, I have hope that the pain and confusion can be resolved. I hope that for myself and everyone else seeking God.
42:00 mark. I think there is a better interpretation of Genesis 3:16 than what has been attributed to it. Look up the article by Jeffery Bradshaw Jan 18, 2018 on the interpreter foundation website "Was Adam meant to rule over or rule with Eve?". Spoiler: It's neither. The verse is more descriptive of the consequences of the Fall than is prescriptive. Check it out!
I'm always looking for a better understanding on that phrase so I'll check it out. Dennis Prager may say the same thing because he says it's descriptive also. Women generally prefer a man who will make more money, be taller, stronger, etc. But we're free to to choose.
@kathybence I like Dennis Prager. I haven't personally listened to him on this topic of desire.
This is just a teaser of the article. I wonder what Prager would think of this Hebrew interpretation. If you can't find the article just let me know and I'll email it to you.
However, when the Lord tells Eve “thy desire shall be to thy husband,” the word Hebrew word for “desire” does not refer to a romantic attraction, but rather a contentious wish to “overcome or defeat another.”[9] In addition, the “rule” of the husband depicted in Hebrew version of the phrase is not benevolent but controlling.[10] The sense of this terrible situation is well captured in a modern Bible translation: “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”[11] As further evidence for this interpretation, note that the same Hebrew terms for “desire” and “rule” that describe a relationship of competition and rancor will later reappear in God’s warning to Cain: “Satan desireth to have thee; … And thou shalt rule over him.”[12]
@@jackiechoate6163 thank you for this excellent study!
@@jackiechoate6163 That sounds different than Dennis' explanation. His Genesis Rational Bible book is where I got this information. Hmmm...so a woman desiring her one husband who would not be hanging with other women might not work with this interpretation. I need to do more homework.
@@jackiechoate6163 I did read this. Not sure. We have two groups (Prager and this group) who know Hebrew saying different things. But I think this makes sense and I could go with this interpretation of Gen 3:16. I find it interesting that the description provided coming from the obviously LDS Interpreter Foundation allows no room for polygamy. Their description of this descriptive conflict between men and women, while still keeping everyone's equality, would fall apart with multiple wives.
I have a problem with the whole "10 virgins" in section 132, we sound just like the other religion with men waiting to get their virgins, it is embarrassing and i can't bring myself to share the gospel anymore
I've started encouraging people to read the Book of Mormon and NOT join the church (unless they feel that is the path God wants them to take) because they are corrupt/in apostasy. They can come closer to Christ by reading and living what is taught in the BofM than any other book, so it is still good to invite people to do that.
@@Kristy_not_Kristine Only an apostate would do something like that.
Good podcast! I loved the analogy of the vacuum bag poured into a cake and that it destroys the whole cake. It is so true that polygamy is baked in to the Brigham LDS church. It is in everything it is in the hierarchy. It is in the temple. It is in how we do the church on a daily basis. if we get rid of section 132, that is just the beginning, there are so many aspects of polygamy within the church that it would have to be a major overhaul.
The other thing that made me think was the comment was made that initially we find some thing abhorrent like polygamy, and then overtime and being exposed to it more and more we become desensitized and then accept it. I feel like this is the same thing that happens with the temple. Our conscience tells us that something isn’t right the first time we go in and we feel uncomfortable and it feels weird and not right , but they say just keep going and you’ll feel better about it basically saying keep going and you’ll be desensitized, so it won’t bother you anymore, but the light of Christ our conscience and the spirit initially told us what was the truth of the matter.
It's interesting how we each get different things out of the wording in the temple. Regarding the law of chastity, I think the wording change from "shall not have...except with" to now say "shall have...only with" is important.
I believe marital intimacy is necessary to draw couples together in complete unity as God intends. The old wording made marital intimacy seem like an unimportant worldly activity completely unrelated to our exaltation. The new wording makes it a commandment that brings us together and prepares us for exaltation.
Is that why they are teaching LDS children that J.S. practiced polygamy?
My guess is they are probably teaching this to children because of members like me and my daughter who were horrified to learn of the many wives principle later in life. They're hoping to inoculate children. In my opinion though it's not appropriate to teach young children about an alternative family relationship, especially without parental consent. So it was a mistake for the church to withhold this information from me, it was a mistake for me to withhold this from my daughter, and the church is making a serious mistake dumping this on young children. Anyway you look at it, no one wins!!!
Michelle tell us the stories for children posted on lds website and app featuring Joe and Emma picking his plural wives
Michelle, I and my daughter, who do not just read the scriptures but we study them in depth and we are so so on board. We know scripturally and in our hearts polygamy is not justified by a loving heavenly father who cares about his daughters. I just watched your show with Cathy Bence and I would like to mention 2 points number one, when people refer to the scripture in Samuel of Nathan, supposedly by God's will gave him all of Solomon's wives and concubines to support polygamy, it is a false premise. To begin with It was the legal procedure at that time that all that belonged to a former king would be given to his successor to be cared for and manage not to become their wives, This is confirmed in the Torah as there is no mention of God giving the new king the servants or wives of the farmer king.
Point two, since God's original law was for a man and a woman to cling to each other and none other, I took the new language in the temple to mean that law,. Especially since it is singular and not plural. Plus the fact I don't think there is any way there is going to be so many more women in the celestial Kingdom when you consider all the young men who have died fighting for their country to support It being the law of polygamy,
God bless you and those who are making their voices heard In your efforts to see a horrible wrong righted.
At 13 minutes, Kathy says that her daughter is trying to get a temple sealing, but it seems like what she means is that her daughter was trying to get a temple divorce.
Yes, I meant to say that she was trying to get a temple cancellation!! My daughter went through quite an ordeal.
The addition of “God’s law” to the endowment is because secular “marriage” now includes gay unions.
Perhaps, but it came when they changed 2 other things: women anointed in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and the law of chastity being changed from the singular husband and wife to "those." Strange coincidence.
As I have mentioned in the past, I do disagree with you Michelle and believe that all LDS 'prophets' who claimed or currently claim eternal polygamy is from God, are false prophets, full stop🚫. This is one of the reasons why I left the LDS church entirely. However, I do think it is good you are discussing this. Kudos to you.
I agree with you. That is the definition of a prophet. They speak truth and talk to God. If they are speaking false doctrine, then by definition they are NOT a prophet of God. ❤ we can’t have it both ways.
The old testament defines what a false prophet is. Brigham qualifies as such in spades. Others as well.
Agreed. They are administrators and boardroom Mormons. Nelson doesn’t believe a word of it. He just loves his job.
However!! When one accepts we are the church that is the prodigal son staying is easy. The good son/RLDS held on to that self-righteousness and got over confident and imploded. We just need to make sure we keep it real and keep what’s left of the faith in good conscience.
The Q15 are NOT Prophets, Seers or revelators. The Church does NOT have the fullness of the priesthood. There is no doubt that the Church, the Bringhamite Church, is nothing less than a break off of the Church organized by Joseoh. intentionally and originally through Joseph Smith the only true Proghet in modern day. All so called "prophets" starting with Brigham Young forward were not called by God according to God's pattern that He established as given in the scriptures. Polygamy is not doctrinal. It is a man made BY policy carried forward by false teachers prophets and apostles.
@@TheOGProtestantMormon I love your username!
So, we keep hearing all about the rough rides that can occur in plural marriages. What about the ones that were happy and harmonic?? Well, at least as unified percentage wise with monogamous marriages being both adequate and broken?
Mountains out of molehills.........
“While it is certainly theoretically possible that there are some positive features associated with
polygyny, all of the cases we have heard remain anecdotal in nature. We were not able to find _a single one_ that could be supported at an aggregate level statistically…
"The findings are clear, consistent, and statistically robust across the board. In fact, the results are the kind of thing most social scientists strive for but almost never find in the course of their careers. If these findings were about something not related to women, chances are that they would be treated as revolutionary in international relations theory; indeed, the effects are much stronger than those supporting the notion of the democratic peace that has spawned an entire cottage industry of inquiry. I leave it to the reader to ponder why powerful effects regarding the treatment of women on the health and security of states do not receive such extensive attention” (McDermott, Rose. The Evils of Polygyny: Evidence of Its Harm to Women, Men, and Society, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2018: 23).
The New and Everlasting Covenant is forgiveness of sins on faith in Jesus Christ with repentance via a broken heart and a contrite spirit and the law being fulfilled. The N&EC is NOT about marriage. AT ALL!! More works based salvation.
Yes!! But sadly that is true unless you're reading Section 132.
Cockroach in the Sundae? Just looking at the one with deep focus does not mean it is the only one. Usually there are tons more if you see one. Maybe there are more of them than Sundae but we cannot see them since we do not look or want to look. With these bugs there is never just 1, usually there are many. Normally if you find a cockroach you bring in the fumigation as the whole thing is infested. The house looks fine but the walls and cracks are full or many more. Just because we are so focused on one, or we do not want to look for others does not mean they are not there. A good tree gives good fruit and a corrupt tree produces corrupt fruit. There is not a mixture of corrupt and good fruit.
If only you got 22 minutes into the episode you would understand how it was used. But you’re just going to rant from looking at the title? Quick to anger.
@ I enjoy her videos and believe Joseph and Hyrum. I have videos on that. So no anger at all. Just saying that you cannot pick polygamy and think that it the only tare or cockroach. If it is one there are tons more issues.
This was my personal experience. For 30 years of my life it was the only cockroach I saw. But that was just me and I realize polygamy is a non-issue for some and just the tip of the iceberg for others.
@ thanks. My actual concern is many see polygamy coming from Brigham and it did. Yet they don’t say then the church after Brigham is not Joseph’s church. They cannot seem to go there. They want polygamy out but church in. How strange since it is not logical. I moved away and stick with Joseph and reject Brigham. It is logical. Now some may not like either. But it is not logical to hold to church and throw out Brigham.
@@FleeingBabylon-Now I think I understand, but whatever someone's views on the church and their authority, my point is that this polygamy teaching, which is still be part of the church, is causing harm. Any decent person, including those who had long given up on the church back in the 70s, should have been relieved when the church finally denounced their harmful, racist teachings on blacks. Whatever our views on this church organization today--authority or no authority--it would be better for everyone if this damaging doctrine was removed.
Sister Stone, are you concerned that the BY papers project will turn into a SECOND polygamy cover-up by the church?
26:58 Kathy Bence, spot on about Exodus 20:7. The problem is in the context of this discussion you are denouncing what God approves as evil. When God says in Exodus 21:10 "if a man takes another wife (specifically a slave wife) he is not to reduce the food, clothing, or sexual rights of the first. So if a man actually did this today who are we to call that evil? Don't like that one because it has slavery? Ok how about Exodus 22:16-17 where if a man (no martial status specified) has sex with an unmarried woman he is required to pay the bride price of virgins and marry the woman if her father consents. If a married man does this today you all call it adultery. You are doing what Exodus 20:7 condemns by saying that what God has approved is evil. You also said that the Torah couldn't have been written by wicked men because it denounces those very same wicked men. So you've refuted yourself.
28:23 But that is who God is. Ezekiel Chapter 23, Isaiah Chapter 54, Jeremiah Chapters 3,31, & 33 God says He is married to two wives. He has a covenant bond with TWO nations, Israel and Judah. This sets up the very framework for the new covenant and the restoration of Israel. If we reject polygyny as part of the nature of God then we by default reject one aspect of the mission of Jesus.
Who has to follow God's laws and who gets justification to break them? Or, More sandy foundations?!
Here is a thought-provoking comparison, raising questions about the nature of morality, divine command, and the way religious texts portray individuals and their actions. Let’s explore the contrast between Cain and Abel versus Nephi and Laban, addressing the nuances in their actions, motivations, and how they are framed in scripture.
Cain vs. Abel
The Story (Genesis 4:1-16):
Cain's Actions:
Cain killed his brother Abel out of jealousy and anger, as God accepted Abel’s offering but rejected Cain’s.
Cain committed the murder while Abel was conscious and afterward showed a lack of remorse, famously replying to God, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Genesis 4:9).
Moral Framing:
Cain is regarded as evil because:
His actions were motivated by envy and self-interest.
He knowingly disobeyed God’s commandments, acting out of his own will.
He displayed a lack of repentance, focusing more on the consequences of his punishment than the act itself.
Symbolism:
Cain is often seen as the archetype of selfishness and rebellion against God’s order.
Abel, in contrast, is portrayed as righteous and faithful, willingly offering his best to God.
Nephi vs. Laban
The Story (1 Nephi 3-4):
Nephi's Actions:
Nephi was commanded by God to kill Laban while Laban was unconscious and incapacitated due to drunkenness.
Nephi justified the act by emphasizing its necessity:
To obtain the brass plates (sacred records needed for his people’s survival and spiritual preservation).
To prevent Laban from harming him and his brothers if he awakened (1 Nephi 4:13).
After the killing, Nephi:
Stripped Laban of his clothes to impersonate him and deceive his household.
Left Laban’s body unburied, leaving others to deal with it in the morning.
Points of Moral Complexity
Nephi’s Actions
Aggravated Murder:
Nephi’s act of killing Laban could be classified as aggravated murder by modern legal standards, especially since Laban was unconscious and defenseless.
He also engaged in deception (wearing Laban’s clothes and impersonating him).
Divine Command:
Nephi justified the killing as a direct command from God, which raises the moral question: Does divine command absolve one of the moral weight of an action like murder?
Keeping Secrets:
The text does not detail whether Nephi confessed this act beyond his brothers and Zoram. This may reflect a burden he carried silently.
Cain’s Actions
Conscious Killing:
Cain’s murder of Abel was premeditated and carried out in anger, without provocation from Abel.
Post-Murder Actions:
Despite burying Abel’s body, Cain displayed a lack of repentance, challenging God with his indifference: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Scriptural and Theological Context
Nephi:
The Book of Mormon consistently frames Nephi as a righteous hero who was acting out of faith and obedience.
1 Nephi 4:13: Nephi rationalizes the killing by stating, “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.”
From this perspective, Nephi’s actions, while severe, are justified as serving a greater divine purpose.
Cain:
In the Bible, Cain’s actions are seen as entirely self-serving and rebellious, with no redeeming purpose. His failure to accept God’s guidance (to improve his offerings) compounded his guilt.
Ethical and Narrative Reflection
The portrayal of Cain vs. Nephi underscores the role of narrative bias in scripture:
Cain: Written as a cautionary tale about envy and disobedience to God.
Nephi: Written as an example of obedience and the complexities of divine commands.
Both accounts challenge the reader to consider intent, motivation, and divine authority:
Did Nephi genuinely act out of faith, or did he justify his actions to himself?
Could Cain have redeemed himself had he repented sincerely?
Conclusion
The contrasting portrayals of Cain and Nephi highlight the importance of narrative context, intent, and perceived divine authority in shaping moral judgments. While Cain is depicted as irredeemably selfish and unrepentant, Nephi is framed as a righteous hero acting in obedience to God’s will. The moral complexity of Nephi’s actions invites reflection on whether divine command can justify acts that would otherwise be considered sinful by societal standards, leaving readers to wrestle with questions of justice, obedience, and personal accountability.
Polygamy is going against the word of God. It is one of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shall not commit adultery", Mormonism is big time polygamy, from the beginning to the end.
I strongly agree with your first statement, and strongly disagree with your second.
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had many wives, in the beginning, and Mormonism believes that men are sealed to their wives for eternity when they marry here on earth, some men's wives die and then they acquire another wife and are sealed to her and the chain keeps going, some men can have three sealed wives to live with in the eternities. This is polygamy from the beginning to the end.
@@MichelleBStone Men can remarry in the temple and have several wives in the eternities according to Mormonism.
Just the facts...
Whether or not Joseph Smith ever practiced or preached polygamy is entirely irrelevant.
Joseph was released as Prophet and President of the Church upon his death. Then it was Brigham Young who became the Lord's anointed, and he preached polygamy.
Then came President Wilford Woodruff and put a stop to it.
And that's all there is to it and the end of the story (at least until God says differently through His servants, the prophets).
As a male, I refuse to feel guilty for something my ancestors did. (My very existence is due to their obedience.)
Following the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the words of His living prophets has always been the "eye of the needle" and the key to salvation.
Only follow the prophet if you have received confirmation of what they teach by the Holy Ghost, if you don’t follow this then your leaders become idols and you worship them over god. See below:
23. And in this thing did the Lord teach us all a great lesson. It is true that the Lord does call out Prophets from among the people. But, let not any people begin in the belief that the calling out makes a man not a man. The Prophet of God is given great gifts of the Spirit. Yea, he may speak with the tongues of Angels and with them, and, if he has the gift of the seer, he may translate strange languages. And behold, the Prophet leads and guides the people in the will and work of the Lord also. But, know this all you who read these things and ponder them in your hearts, the Prophet is fallible. He is not perfect, and his counsels are not perfect. And, though we count ourselves blessed because the Lord does see fit to call and raise up unto us His Prophets, it is because He does this that we feel constrained to subject all things unto the confirmation of the Holy Ghost, howbeit even the words of a Prophet. 24. Behold, the Lord has spoken it: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Wherefore, make not gods of your Prophets! For they will be false gods and idols. For, even if they be called of God and appointed, yea, even if they be anointed by the very finger of God, they are yet simple men and you will have made unto yourselves gods that shall fall. For there are but few men unto whom the Lord has given power over death, and they are Ayohahn his beloved Apostle, and Nayfee, Layee, and Tsimohthih (Timothy), who were brothers and among the twelve He chose when He came to the people gathered about the temple in the Hit- ah-yet-noht Pah. But all others shall fall by the shaft of death, just as you and I must likewise fall. And when we fall, our bodies shall go back into the earth, as with all living things. And, notwithstanding our spirits live on, in accordance with that great covenant and plan by which this world was created, yet are we corruptible, and yet does the idol rust and the rot take us. Wherefore, when you make gods of the servants of God, you cast their ashes in His face. Will he hold you sinless in this? 25. I say unto you, He will hold you accountable. For, has He not commanded each of us to pray always? And does this not also apply to every word that has proceeded out of the mouths of the Prophets? For, I ask you, how know you that I ever lived? Now, I write this unto my own descendents. Wherefore, I desire that you have a remembrance of me and of my doing. But, how know you that these writings truly come to you from me, my children? No man may confirm it. It is only by the confirmation of the Holy Ghost that you may know that I truly wrote these things unto you. And behold, it is by that power which the Holy Ghost possesses that you may have all knowledge, for, it is by that power that the Sahnhempeht (Christ) did take upon Himself all things. And it is by that same power that He may give the same to us. Yea, it is by that power that all things may be brought to our remembrance, both those things which we sometime knew of our own conscience and experience, as well as all things known because of the experiences of others. Yea, even all that the Father has may be given to us by this same power. 26. Wherefore, why seek we to make all things sure by the voice and word of men? There is but one way to know of a surety that a thing is true, whether spoken by a man or men, or by a Prophet, or by an Angel, or even by the very voice of Sahnhempeht (Christ) Himself! Yea, I make so bold as to say that I would gladly speak face to face with God, and hold myself blessed in every way. But behold, having thus communed in a most holy way, I would retire to my chamber, and bend my knee and my will, and ask most humbly that the Holy Ghost might confirm the thing unto my soul. 27. Does this sound ill? To some it may speak of doubt. But, I shall importune the Lord in this thing, for He has commanded it. And I would rather He be importuned than that His anger be kindled against me. 28. Yea, for behold, even the elect shall be deceived. Even the Prophets of God may act and speak betimes as men and fathers sometimes do out of the earthy and carnal concerns of their hearts. Yea, what man does not feel strongly the needs and responsibilities of his stewardship? Do not expect them to be any different than yourselves, and, if the Lord does allow men to be fallible and to err, but to repent, so much more ought you to allow the same. Wherefore, the Lord has counseled us: Judge not. For with that same judgment wherewith you judge, so too shall you be judged also. 29. Behold, I say unto you who shall receive these things and ponder them, You shall live in a time when men do seek to elevate the Prophets unto that status wherein they may speak no error nor act in any mean thing. This is a great pitfall to the righteous. For, such men shall make regulations that begin to deny the right of every son or daughter of God to seek the confirmation of the Holy Ghost. Yea, in your day, if a man hears the words of some Prophet and, seeking the confirmation of the Holy Ghost, fails to receive it, but receives instead a witness that the utterance is false or misguided, behold, he shall be brought up before the counsels and he shall be persecuted for having received such a witness. And they shall scourge him bitterly with their words and shall even cast him out from among them.
@will.i.am0991 Of course, you're correct. All commandments of God are subject to personal confirmation by the Holy Ghost, and no one is suggesting otherwise.
However, those who suggest Joseph Smith had no part or hand in polygamy, are cherry picking Church history.
These same folks often blame Brigham Young for polygamy and refuse to accept him as the next Church leader and Prophet of the Lord.
This is a slippery slope that leads to appostasy.
Never more than 20-30% of "Mormons" were polygamist, so obviously members did make up their own minds.
@will.i.am0991 No one is suggesting that the words of the Prophets are not subject to individual confirmation by the Holy Ghost. And since only about 20-30% of "Mormons" were ever polygamist, members did in fact, use their own judgement and inspiration.
We do not worship anyone but the Lord God or follow any person or thing blindly.
(I see you've perfected your copy and paste skills.)
@@jamesbaldwin7676
Why would the Lord command us to do something that is against what the BoM teaches?
@will.i.am0991 No of course not...What are you referring to?
Michelle you have read Gospel Topics Essay right?????
Of course. I strongly disagree with the one on Nauvoo polygamy.
Marquita - Yeah, there's some interesting things posted on the church's site.
Have you read the upcoming lesson plan for our children in primary on November 16, 2025?
There's two parts:
* November 10-16: "I Have Seen Your Sacrifices in Obedience"
* (supplemental) (Scripture Stores) 1831-1890 Plural Marriage (with cartoon imagery)
As TH-cam comments don't allow links, I put in the full titles of each
I honestly don't understand why you stay and tear down a church you believe went into apostasy, instead of supporting the movement (RLDS) who have been teaching these things since the 1860's.
I don't believe the church "went into apostasy." I want to be in my church, and I believe God wants me to be in this church. That didn't mean I must or should agree with everything my church has done or said. I hope most members find some things from our church history troubling. The RLDS church no longer teaches that Joseph was innocent of polygamy. They tend to not view him as a prophet. The LDS Church is my spiritual home, and where I have come to know God, and where I want to raise my children and worship with my ward, and much more. My son just returned from his mission this week. We put forth so much effort to try to bring people to our church. It is a shame that members of our church try to get people to leave.
@MichelleBStone No. Community of Christ has gone the direction you mentioned. There are many traditional RLDS people organized in Restoration Branches, of which Richard and Pamela Price were part. But I suspect you know that as you are using their research.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Sec 132 does not command that all Latter Day Saints today must or should participate in polygamy. Stop the madness!! :>)
It was given to certain members of the times.
Have you read Section 132?
@@kathybence Yes, ma'am. The chapter is directed specifically to Joseph Smith and any who would also agree to enter into an everlasting covenant of plural marriage at the time. That time is not today nor was it a command forced upon all Saints when it was written. That's it.
The chapter also specifies that those who do shall maintain the covenant of plural marriage righteously or suffer the consequence such as King David did whom overstepped his bounds of righteousness. :>)
It seems your reading comprehension could use some work.
@@MichelleBStone Seems so. Can you please provide the proof?? I'll wait. :>)
@@godsoffspring4195 LOL, I've already provided a lot! Your reading comprehension is your responsibility. It really is surprising how bad polygamy apologists are at reading comprehension and critical thought. But it is obviously by choice, since they want to defend the indefensible. So there's not much that can be done about it.
24:00 - Oh yeah! Torah discussion, that gets my fingers typing. Though side not I will say that the common thread throughout the discussion up to this point is that neither Michelle nor Kathy are presenting a Biblical understanding of marriage. Michelle and I have discussed previously but her view of what marriage is, is not scriptural. She presents a feminist egalitarian view of marriage, not the scriptural marriage as a mirror of God's relationship with His people. Anyway getting side tracked:
Denise Prager can sometimes be a quack when it comes to Biblical interpretation.
Kathy: "getting mixed up in polygamy not because God commands." Yes, because it is not required for God to explicitly command a man to take another wife for him to do so.
Kathy: "because they're lacking faith" Nope that's a misunderstanding of the story of Abraham and Sarah. Sarah acted in faith giving Hagar, not because she lacked it.
Kathy: "people lied to them" Yet Jacob willingly chose to marry again.
Kathy: "angry wives" Read the story again. The wives are not angry with each other. Genesis 30:13 (NIV): "Then Leah said, ‘How happy I am! The women will call me happy.’ So she named him Asher."
Kathy: "It always means unhappiness" It doesn't. You're reading that into the text where its not there as evidenced in part by the scripture I just quoted.
Kathy: "this is not what God wants" You have no Biblical evidence to support this claim. God gave many commandments that if followed result in polygyny. God didn't ever condemn the ancients for polygyny. David was only condemned for adultery when he took another man's wife. The Biblical text says Joash did what was right in the sight of God when Jehoiada took to wives for him. That statement that polygyny is not what God wants is refuted through out the Biblical text.
It’s a very good thing that we have The Book of Mormon to clarify the Bible.
"Polygamy was never commanded" I'm so sick and tired of hearing that lame excuse yet God "GAVE" King David's wives to another man who would treat those wives properly and He sent Hagar beck into a polygamous life with Sarah and Abraham.
Polygamy was so common in the old days by both righteous and non righteous men and women, God didn't have to command it.
The real focus should be why God never reprimanded men like Abraham for doing it. :>)
The same reason God didn't reprimand people for having slaves. The fact that he didn't condemn an action does not equate to him condoning an action.
The real focus should be on what do we have recorded as God's design for marriage? Which we know is monogamy
And who was the first person recorded to practice polygamy? Lamech who was a worshipper of Satan and called Master Mahan.
What we have is, God did not condemn polygamy in the early days. In fact, Moses wrote "If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights"
Lamech was mentioned because two branches of people became of it via two wives. Not specifically to condemn plural marriage, but nice try.
So was Abraham. One righteous branch covenanted with God and the other not. Again, there was a need for Abraham having two wives. There was some very good reasons for proper polygamy in the old days for righteous men. One reason would be.... they would have been outbred by non righteous people. It's not rocket science at all.
Additionally. Not all slavery was unjust. Many people chose to live and serve under the wing of righteous kings and leaders. Not so much evil rulers. Now you know why God did not specifically condemn it. Unfortunately, evil kings abused it and God indeed condemned that. Ask Moses and the Egyptians. :>)
Your argument doesn't work. 132 claims repeatedly, yet falsely, that God commanded Abraham's polygamy. That is factually incorrect, and is one of many insurmountable errors in what is supposed to be a "revelation." This is a problem that cannot be overcome. Polygamy is not of God, and the polygamist parts are 132 are not revelation from God.
@@MichelleBStone Everybody keeps ranting about 132. I've long overcome the problem(s) you are having and so have many others.
To understand that God accepted righteous plural marriages throughout the early days is clear even if sec. 132 was never written or even the Book of Mormon for that matter, including Jacob 2:30.
It's not rocket science, Michelle. If the Lord did not condemn the OT people from plural procreation... He willed it at the time and if or when He had a problem with any abuse within plural families... He said so. King David being the first when He went outside of his household in lust and murdered for it. The Lord took his wives away and gave them to another man who obviously never had the same problem David developed.
If polygamous unions were never ever of God, He would have said so from the beginning of time. Your reasoning is flawed, sis. Trying to convince those of us who know better is like trying to tells us God never planned on or accepted the fact that Adam and Eve were going to partake of the forbidden fruit when He knew very well it was prerequisite, would happen and needed. Therefore He willed it.
All times He has said "OTHERWISE" 😇
@@godsoffspring4195”He would have said so from the beginning of time.” Nice try. He did at the beginning of Genesis. Quit trying to justify whoredoms.
I think the fundamentalists are the true followers of Joseph Smith. They ARE the truly, concrete followers of the Book of Mormon. I understand the fundamentalists more than I understand the present-day members of the church of Jesus Christ of ladder day saints. To take out plural marriage is to deny that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet.
Just wondering....have you watched any of Michelle's videos?
@@kathybenceThere’s no way he has or he never would have made such an obviously ignorant comment.
Thanks for the enlightening discussion, Kathy! Truly! I watched all your videos. Please keep them coming. 🥰
@@lindsayashton1385 Seen one, you've basically seen em all. Although I don't agree with half of what Cameron said, Michelle's videos are evidence of only one main thing. You are all deniers of the fact(s) with tickled ears of apostacy.
Book of Mormon is an anti-polygamy book, not sure what mental gymnastics you have done to come to your conclusions.
@@kathybenceI’m sharing what I THINK.
Now the mask is off. It’s one thing to address polygamy, but this title is no way to do it. Shame on you Michelle!
If anything, "cockroach" is being kind.
When it comes to church history, the topic of polygamy is more akin to a corpse covered with maggots.
If the church is overall good, they'd be the sundae. Throw a false doctrine like polygamy and you got a roach. It's simple
Michelle used the title I use in my videos. Since I was on her channel, and my videos address polygamy this way, I guess you have problem with how I address polygamy. How should one address a topic they find evil and degrading?
It's actually perfect because it's so accurate. 😁
@@kathybence Wining and victory tastes like chicken to the losers. 😂 love your channel!