The beliefs and attitudes of the RLDS/Community of Christ church are seeping into Latter-day circles. We can see this in three major areas: polygamy denial, a fallen Brigham Young, and Temples are not necessary. In this interview, you can see from the more tense portions that this would have devolved into a barking episode if I had argued a side. I wanted to let Michelle talk and clarify her position. She did that on some issues but was vague on others. I believe Michelle brings up some valid points of discussion, but ultimately, the evidence that the Lord has sanctioned polygamy from time to time, including with Joseph Smith, is overwhelming. She seems to pick and choose what to believe and what to disregard based on her framework of polygamy denial. Several stretches are made with Abraham, David, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young. Her "spirit of deception" argument was disturbing. A square peg does not fit into a round hole. I do really appreciate Michelle coming on the show and studying things out, though I disagree with her conclusions. For those of you supporting Michelle and accusing me of deleting comments, there are three things that happen: 1) Spamming-Some of you have resorted to spamming in response to comments. I found one example where there were over 28 of the same post. TH-cam automatically blocks spamming, thank goodness. 2) As you will see in my community guidelines, links are not allowed. There is a good reason for this based on the topics we tackle here. Several posts with links from Brian Hales and Don Bradley also didn't make it through. 3) This is for you of the despicable fringe. Several posts are held by TH-cam due to vitriolic language and profanity. This was targeted at President Nelson, the church, and commenters with a couple to me. This is not Reddit! I create an open forum for thought but not for toxic content. And lastly, if you are going to preach against the church or demean President Nelson, it won't get through. That is my rule.
Greg, you have admitted yourself that you have not studied this issue out. How can you disagree with her conclusions if you haven’t put in the time and effort to try and fully understand? Even if people disagree with her final conclusion on Joseph, she has done a great job of making a historical and scriptural case against polygamy, and has shown that there are many holes in the church’s polygamy narrative.
@@Commenter2121my problem comes from the denial of the temple and Brigham Young. From study, prayer and experience, I know the Temple is of God and has been from the time of Adam and Eve. Any belief that takes away from that doesn’t fit.
@@Commenter2121 That's why I had her on the show. But I am a well-versed studied of the scriptures. It's easy for me to say that Abraham didn't commit adultery. Imagine, using the term "Abrahamic Covenant" for an adulterer. Abraham was a prophet seer and revelatory already before and sought earnestly for righteousness before he ever met Hagar. It's easy for me to believe that Brigham Young was a prophet and not a murderer or at the minimum, a lustful man "on the prowl" and initiated polygamy through lies and a "spirit of deception." It's easy for me to see why the story of David and Bathsheba represents going beyond what the Lord has sanctioned.
@@WyoCutlass71 This comment shows that you aren’t aware of her work either. Michelle has constantly encouraged people to stay in the church and explained why she stays herself. She’s also acknowledged Brighams role in the church and has shared some deeply personal spiritual experiences she’s had at the temple. She is not anti Brigham or anti temple. She’s just not afraid to call out bad behavior when she sees it, and unfortunately Brigham said and did some very troubling things. Would you condemn Hugh B Brown for standing up against church leaders on the priesthood ban? Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Benson made some horrific statements about our black brothers and sisters, luckily others had the courage to push back.
Between this, gay marriage, gender confusion, malevolent compassion, etc, it's no wonder president Nelson prophesied that “In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.” It's interesting to me how quickly the prophetic nature of that statement is being revealed. But he also did say to not delay, that time is running out.
So true! I see this happening too. Satans deceptions are so creative and calculating. I’m certain we will see more of them. I’ve got a warry eye out for AI
@@psmith535 Rock in a hat WAS NEVER a thing, but somehow dodo birds just love it. Joseph had the real deal urim and thumim, came with the plates. Then president dodo shows us the hat... brilliant. And recommends the jab with his BLACK mask on, More brilliance.
I'm in the camp that believes Joseph was not a polygamist. I feel like you can't PROVE Joseph was or was not practicing polygamy. But, I do think the bulk of the evidence, combined with reason and logic, support that he was not. In no particular order. 1. There are no known children from any women other than Emma. 2. Joseph's verifiable, contemporary statements opposed polygamy. Condemned polygamy. 3. The Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:24) clearly condemns what was done by David and Solomon having many wives as an abomination. D&C 132:38-39 is in direct conflict with what is said in the Book of Mormon stating that David and Solomon were given their multiple wives by God. 4. The original D&C 101 specifically addressed the issue, the accusation, of polygamy being leveled at the Church. That section says one man and one woman only while either are living. No additional wives or husbands while married to another. 5. Brigham and Emma were at odds. Emma maintained that Joseph never had any other woman. Brigham, in the 36th Semi-Annual Conference of the Church, Oct 1866, said, among other things, that, "Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth". He continued, accusing her of attempting to murder Joseph twice by poisoning him. Does this make sense? Does this seem consistent with the love letters and affection that was known to have existed between them? Or, does it make more sense that Emma knew Brigham better than any of us today know Brigham and that she knew he was up to no good. Brigham had to discredit Emma in front of his followers without discrediting Joseph. 6. What my heart tells me. I have done a lot of praying and soul searching on this. I might be wrong in my conclusions, but I feel in my heart and in my mind, based on the available information and my prayers, that Polygamy is not, and was not, from God.
@@BrianTerrill this is a weak response. For decades the smoking gun that “proved” JS polygamy was the claims of Sylvia sessions and Josephine Lyon. We know know via DNA Joseph was not the father. Huh.
@@KimballCodygreat point plus that darn High Council meeting in 1843 that has the attendees noting in their journals exact lines we read in section 132. Michelle is just not being honest with all the facts. She had an agenda and gets her reward nevertheless.
I love how the Virgin birth, the command for Abraham to sacrifice his son doesn't phase the average believer. But stuff like this becomes a stumbling block, why, because the impacts what the listener wants for themselves. If we listen to total selflessness, it would not impact us. We would trust that this and many other things that we would have a hard time understanding would work out with a loving God. I find it baffling that many people are not outraged with the idea that in other churches there is a belief, that people who lived and died without knowing the Savior just automatically go to hell. That should outrage people but often doesn't. But will get outraged at this. Human genius never ceases to amaze.
If your neighbor holding a position that conveys the right to speak to you for God we’re to tell you that you should kill your spouse would you at least need to think about it?
@@Kait272 I think you’re missing the point being made. The fact that he was commanded in the first place and got very near to actually following through _even though he was loath to do so_ should make you uncomfortable. If God told you to sacrifice your miracle child, you’d be pretty upset, too.
The Virgin birth isn't a good example to support your argument. It doesn't violate the laws of God that are specifically stated in scripture like polygamy does. Yes, there are examples of polygamy (e.g. Abraham) but if you carefully read the account of Abraham it was not something God commanded him to do. It was an idea that his wife came up with and she regretted it quite quickly and it brought a lot of discord and unrighteous in the family. Your example of Abraham being commanded to offer up Isaac is probably a better example along the lines of polygamy. However, if you think about this example, it also doesn't fit. This was a test and it ultimately pointed Abraham's heart to God the Father and the sacrifice that He would make of His Only Begotten. However, Abraham was not permitted to carry it out but we are to believe that polygamy is similar to this example even though polygamy was permitted to be carried out?
@@Kait272 unfortunately, you are one the deceived. Your biased and twisted comments are partially responsible for helping Michelle Stone deceive and divide the saints. You’re gonna be in for a rude awakening if you keep promoting and supporting everything Michelle does and says.
It doesn't matter what they did in the past, The Book of Mormon is for our day and God has explicitly given the command to have one wife and concubines ye shall have none. And God via Jacob, "Thus saith the Lord" has addressed the ancient practices of old, "26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.". Jacob 2:26. So any of the old people if their gross criminal practices of many wives are not the product of the great and abominable church of the devil getting hold of the record before spreading it throughout the nations is a moot point, God doesn't want it happening!
@Wh3nth3wick3drul3 the Great and Abominable church was created after the time of Christ if we actually want to follow the proper text of the Book of Mormon. 1 Nephi 13:4 shows it was created by the Gentiles. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon were not Gentiles. But even though you made an emotional pitch that distorted scripture, you got 18 likes
If we can believe Joseph lied to protect the Church, why can't we believe that Brigham did the same? He made earlier statements that he introduced polygamy, not Joseph. Later, due to the persecutions over polygamy they needed to frame it as a Joseph doctrine because the Democrats told them it would make a stronger constitutional case. They lied later on to save the Church. Same argument. Same logic. It doesn't have to hurt belief in the modern Church.
@@PeterBrownscouts Well, yeah. The VAST majority of the “proof” that he was a polygamist just “happened” to show up just in time for the temple plot case, conveniently enough. Most apologists don’t have any idea what that is or why it matters. Well…it represents a motive for deception and mainstreaming polygamy by slandering Joseph, doesn’t it?
AMEN! We already have cleansed the Adam God doctrine Brigham put in the temple; And we already are cleansing the Church of the slavery and the Priesthood ban. We have already removed many things from the temple ceremony counter to The Book of Mormon. And it did not end The Church. God suffers mistakes of the past as he pointed out in Jacob 2-3 when he condemned the people of old for their practice of what HE called, the "ABOMINATION" and WHOREDOM" of polygamy.
Thanks, Greg, for having Michelle on. It's always good to hear people speak for themselves rather than what other people say about them. We need to be humble and willing to listen to both sides and to sincerely study it out for ourselves without assuming we already have all the answers.
See my original post. Michelle does not invite discussion from both sides. It would be wonderful if Michelle invited someone who doesn't share her belief on this topic on her channel to have an open discussion. Instead, comments that do not support her narrative are being deleted.
@@McKenzieLewis-t5h Please post the title of the episode(s) where a guest who does not share Michelle's views was invited to join in an open discussion.
@@ShelleyFrost-c4z In addition to the above mentioned, episodes 123 and 124 are with polygamist Benjamin Shaffer. She has been engaging with both sides as often as the polygamy side is willing to engage. Edit: also just fyi about disappearing comments, TH-cam comments go poof somewhat regularly. I’ve noticed if I have a link or even copy and paste, those comments tend to disappear.
I just want to be sure I'm following the careful, balanced reasoning of those who oppose and condemn Sister Stone when she simply says she believes Joseph Smith when he ALWAYS proclaimed he condemned polygamy and never EVER practiced it. See if I've got this straight, will you Brothers Brian, Jacob, David, et al . . .? * THE LORD GAVE Joseph Smith a direct and essential commandment for human salvation (marry your babysitters ...) and then ALSO TOLD JOSEPH TO .... * .... PRACTICE this anti-Book of Mormon commandment in order to have TONS of CHILDREN beyond your relationship with Emma, without ever producing ANY other children--except for those with your wife, Emma, * .... MAKE SURE there is NOT A SINGLE contemporary JOURNAL ENTRY about ANY of those earth-shattering unions of the Lord's prophet with any of those dozens of polygamous wives--even though they each kept regular journal entries of all important events in their lives (though DECADES LATER, other leaders will round them up & "jog their memories" & have them EACH SIGN BOILERPLATE AFFIDAVITS, which the unbiased judge at the "Temple Lot Trial" will aggressively dismiss as obviously coerced FRAUDS in their failed attempt to provide the necessary legal evidence that you, Joseph Smith, ever practiced polygamy), * .... ALWAYS DENY and LIE about the new commandment of institutional adultery (whoops, "polygamy"), & loudly condemn polygamy (whoops, "institutional adultery") at every opportunity, * (because, you know, the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may then immediately deny that commandment & repeatedly lie about ever having received it), * (and because, you know, the same guy who had the . . . courage to walk out of the Sacred Grove & announce to the entire world they must repent & follow every guideline given to him directly by God himself, word-for-word, to have any hope of salvation from hell; this same pretty tough guy by most standards, then quakes, trembles, & cowers at the prospect of some Missouri or Illinois hick walking past him & accusing him of keeping some commandment given to him directly by the Lord--with a Samurai angel making sure he is on the team) * .... AND THEREFORE ALWAYS SNEAK AROUND in the dark--behind your wife's back--when adding to your teenage (& other men's wives) harem--as commanded by the Lord, * .... AND EXCOMMUNICATE ANY OTHERS you know of who preach or practice that same polygamy, * .... AND THEN PREACH and include additional verses & sections to the DC that clearly certify that the Lord's law of marriage is strictly MONOGAMOUS, * .... AND THEN ARRANGE FOR FUTURE LEADERS (long after your death) to ERASE those monogamous verses & sections (DC 101, et al), * .... AND HAVE THOSE FUTURE LEADERS REPLACE those clear monogamy verses & sections with the most ham-fisted & carnally-toned words of DC 132, which section suddenly CELEBRATES & COMMANDS having plenty of wives & concubines in order to satisfy any of those ole natural "desires" that may arise . . . which "desires" & accumulation of desire-quenching wives now become the top priority in a (male) saint's life) * .... AND HAVE THEM INCLUDE blatantly FALSE DOCTRINES throughout that newly-forged (I mean placed ... or ... added ... or displayed ... or ...) DC section, * .... AND have them ADDRESS your beloved WIFE and faithful matriarch of the Restoration, EMMA, in the threatening, debasing, HATEFUL TONES of that document, * .... AND HAVE THOSE SAME LEADERS declare the earthly practice of polygamy "ESSENTIAL for exaltation" & "MORE IMPORTANT than BAPTISM" and declare Monogamy the enemy of morality & source of prostitution & disease, * .... AND THEREBY, with all this ammo now available, PROVIDE anti-LDS GROUPS their GREATEST WEAPON (targeting potential investigators & vulnerable members) against reading the Book of Mormon, gaining a testimony of its truth, & joining the Lord's true and restored kingdom they could ever hope for in their deepest anti-LDS dreams . . . Am I following you folks, or did I miss a few direct commandments of the Lord to his founding prophet of the Restoration ... ? And you're mad at Sister Stone for doubting such "light-and-truth-filled" doctrines & related activities? Hmmm, I think, instead of all that, I'll just go ahead & believe and sustain the Lord's founding prophet of the Restoration, the Prophet Joseph Smith, when he ALWAYS exclaimed that he condemned polygamy & was a loving and faithful husband to his dear wife, Emma, who also clearly denied that her husband ever polygamized. Sure hope my decision doesn't get y'all too riled . . . Give it a try, yourself, my friend, & see how the Lord feels about that decision. Okay?
It’s so ironic how many criticize her for speaking against the current prophet (which she is careful not to do) but yet have no problem to disparage the prophet of the final dispensation, Joseph Smith, (second only to Jesus), Hyrum and Emma to justify the abominable practice he openly condemned until his dying breath. I will err on the side of defending Joseph’s character, his loyalty to Emma and faithfulness to doing all of God’s commandments-which did not include any form of deception or betrayal. Michelle’s research and quest for truth are so well admired and needed and bring peace to a topic that does not align with who we know God and Joseph to be.
The moment you start to take an objective look at the source documents, provennonce, and motivations, it becomes clear... Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma told the truth. Joseph always fought polygamy. Joseph was in alignment with Christs view on the matter as releaved in Jacob 2. But ultimately, the full knowledge comes by confirmation of the spirit as Moroni teaches. "By the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things."
Absolutely spot on. Before I had even heard of Michelle Stone the voice of the Spirit gently revealed to me that polygyny/polygamy could not possibly be the eternal order of heaven and therefore is not a celestial principle. I was not even studying polygamy at the time. But in being tutored by the Spirit of Truth about other eternal principles, this truth was manifested so very clearly. Michelle is just the cherry on top to confirm what I already know.
@oshemer5066 I would believe what the Holy Ghost tells you after sincerely studying it out and praying in humility, sincerely seeking to know the will of the Lord no matter the cost. This is the only way to know anything for certain. Best wishes ❤️
Read 132 out loud all the way through with your spouse. Ask each other how you feel. Dont rely on others, it will be very clear. Not from god. Not a hard test. @@oshemer5066
@@oshemer5066 Joseph said himself, “some revelations are from God, some are from man and some are from devils.” I had a dark spirit try to move in me to persuade me to believe that Adam was God the father. When the scriptures are so clear (minus 132), I don’t think you need the spirit to confirm anything. Hold to the rod, not the arm of flesh.
I am 65 years old, came of age in the 70’s. My dad was heavily engrossed in the controversy of blacks and the priesthood, on the side of getting rid of the ban and spoke openly against the practice. He told stories about how the subject nearly tore our ward apart. Lived in Granger, Utah. He, along with others that agree with him, was called deceived and an apostate, and treated very much the way Michelle is treated today. Most people were not willing to consider any other point of view. Then one day in June of 1978, he was no longer an apostate but there were still a lot of hard feelings and my family moved shortly after that. I wonder how many people commenting here has actually looked up any pieces of evidence that Michelle has offered and actually read for yourselves what Joseph wrote and said. So much is there for all to see in the Joseph Smith papers online for free. I agree that there are many things open for interpretation but Michelle’s evidence is as solid as any of the evidence provided on the other side of the issue. More compelling in my opinion having actually looked up and verified the evidence. But ya’ll can just wait for the prophet, apostles, and academics to do your thinking for you. But God works through the weak, simple and humble. And the phrase “every accredited historian agrees…” is just so pharisaical.
The Problem with you argument is that the women themselves bore a consistent testimony that they were married and sealed to Joseph Smith. These were women of honor and integrity who sacrificed so much to the lay the foundations of the Restoration. Our scriptural canon supports plural marriage. Section 132 is a revelation from God on the the authorized practice of plural marriage. In fact sexton 131 is the revelation is that have the most provenance. Moses denied the Priesthood to the entire house of Israel except for the sons of Aaron. Jesus Christ denied baptism while he was alive to anyone who was not a Jew. Those who entered into plural marriage do so by the authorization of Joseph Smith.
True. On top of that, the belief that Joseph did or did not practice polygamy is not going to save you one way or the other. It probably wont have much eternal significance at all in the end.... But some of her other views will have greater eternal significance for those who believe them. Like believing that the temple ordinance as we have it is not fully acceptable to God. Or her views on the priesthood. She seems to think that the fullness of the priesthood was received by Joseph and then taken away from the saints shortly after. She has also concluded that Brigham Young was psychopathic and insinuated that he might have been behind the destruction of the Nauvoo Temple. She often perpetuates the belief that the church leaders are lying to its members... and the list goes on. I do not think that she is an evil human but she is certainly not a prophetess as many now call her. I would be extremely weary of her views. It is not necessarily apostate to believe Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy, but some of the other views she promotes are actually apostate. At some point she will be forced to chose between her teachings and the churches. And all those who follow her will have to make that same decision as well.
my biggest issue with this whole argument is she sayin that polygamy was never of God... what on earth is she talking about, have you read 1Samuel? Have you read how Hannah was blessed in spite of her being in a polygamist relationship? Jacob being a polygamist saw the face of God and was called Israel in spite of him having 4 wives, if Polygamy was so bad why then did God bless these polygamist? I have my issues with the practice but the truth is, without it, we would not have a religion period. Hell, Jesus himself would not have a religion to be born into, after all, was not Joseph the descendent of Juda?... A product of polygamy? This woman is off the rails, DnC 50 people, that's all I'm going to say, and there are a LOT of people being deceived now adays.
Why don’t you watch the dozens of videos and papers written about this topic before just throwing out a blanket statement on this statement/question? People have done and are doing their own research as they have decided to STOP just believing the narrative they have been told. 🙄
@@tinariches6690 i have been watching her and following this story for some time time and she along with all the others that are saying that polygamy was not of God are full of it, thats why i speak with boldness. She along with the rest of polygamist deniers have zero authority first of all and are coming up with there own doctrines. We are LDS, not protestants, we believe in revelation not sola scriptura, and lastly, by there fruits ye shall know them. And what has been the fruits of denying polygamy? look no further the RLDS.
@@akpred sister that is a cop out, you dont get to see the face of God if you are in such terrible sin, hell you dont get to go to the temple like hannah did if you are living in sin. I understand that Grace is always there, but polygamy has played a vital role in the abrahamic traditions, and to say is not of God? That does not even make sense. This is why Joseph asked God the quesiton in the first place, thats why God told Joseph to prepare his heart. Jews oficially stoped practicing polygamy 1,000 AD... I mean its in the old testament, its part of the law of moses. I'm sorry but no shes wrong.
Are people so afraid admit that she could be right? What do you loose? I support and sustain our prophet and love this gospel but she very much could be right. Why do these men have to be perfect without any flaw when we have biblical evidence of flawed men called of God. Christ was and is the only perfect being to ever live. I have in my 40+ years tried to justify polygamy but over the past couple of years of personally looking into this THIS MAKES THE MOST SENCE! Yes it shatters some things but those things coupled with this information actually makes all of the pieces fit together. Do I think she is teaching through revelation? NO she is doing what any of us could do (and what God has asked us to do ) STUDY IT OUT! Then pray and ask. We are the main religion that teaches that and we are afraid to do it ourselves on this issue because we I think are afraid of what that means to us about Brigham Young and others. Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration. The church and its leaders are guides to lead us to Christ, but they are not the gospel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beautifully said. So many people reject this idea because they think they would have to reject the church. They do not! You can reject that polygamy came from Joseph and still be a faithful believing member!
I love that only people who agree with, or are the prophetess MS, have been deemed to have studied it out. Many others have studied it out and we’ve arrived at a different conclusion. The two sides disagree, but only one side is disparaging prophets old and new and it’s not the side that disavows MS as a prophetess.
@Ehcfe Nobody said the prophets are perfect. But it should be understood that they are also not going to be able to teach and practice institutionalized adultery (as the plural marriage-denying revisionists see it) and yet retain priesthood keys. So anyone who wants to go down this revisionist road, if they are consistent, can't claim "plural marriage was never commanded of God" and yet honestly claim they believe in the Church or understood how priesthood keys work. This is precisely why coming to this revisionist conclusion, which agrees with neither scripture or history, goes so often hand in hand with apostasy. It's only been apostate sects that have pushed this idea. Now those of like mind within the Church are pushing the same falsehoods. Before they're sifted out anyway.
@@jaredshipp9207 That is plainly incorrect. Even if Brigham committed adultery it does not invalidate his keys. That is not how priesthood keys work, currently or anciently. As per the church handbook (38.2.6), unworthiness is not something that invalidates an ordinance, including ordinances that confer priesthood keys. If a stake president is excommunicated, for adultery, apostasy, or even murder, it does not invalidate any of the ordinations he performed. Otherwise, an investigation would have to be performed to discover when he became unworthy, and which ordinances and temple work would have to be redone. Alma the younger received his priesthood authority from king Noah (Msh 11:5), a man openly committing adultery and who killed Abinadi. If this does not invalidate Alma’s authority, you’ll be hard pressed to argue that Brigham’s keys would be invalidated for lying about polygamy’s origins. (Additionally, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff were ordained by Joseph, not Brigham, so it’s a null point anyways.) Ultimately, we do not believe in a gospel of perfection. Jesus died so that we might not be condemned by the mistakes of our past. Just as God is eager to forgive us of our sins individually, even heinous ones, so too is He eager to forgive us institutionally. “Ordinances of the priesthood are valid if they are performed by authorized priesthood bearers in the prescribed manner.… The ordinance does not become invalid if someone involved is unworthy at the time he participates. The sanctity of the ordinance is violated, but not the validity. ” Rex W Allred (Melchizedek General Priesthood Committee), Liahona, March 1989
@bbbarham6264 You're confusing this with the ability to lead the Church, maintain one's prophetic mantle, and receiving continual revelation while living and teaching gross sin. Sorry, it doesn't work like that and those history revisionists who claim it does are simply trying to have their cake and eat it too. They don't have the courage of their own convictions and will attack the Church and its leaders from the inside, leading others to leave, while they themselves don't. That's what Michelle Stone is doing.
When I went to the Lord in prayer many years ago, asking about polygamy, the answer I received was to read what Joseph said about it. Everything in the church materials said that he supported polygamy. It wasn’t until two years ago that I learned that Brigham Young supervised the revision of Joseph’s words, condemning polygamy, to say the exact opposite. Joseph condemned polygamy at every opportunity. I have collected 13 instances showcasing this, although a 14th just emerged last week when Joseph’s copy of the BOM was shown publicly (Thanks Jeremy Hoop) and he wrote in the margins of Jacob 2 “one wife”. Thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers Project, I can now find the original documents and read for myself what Joseph and Hyrum consistently taught. Honestly, it is a lot to process through and like Michelle, I don’t have all of the answers about the temple or the LDS Church leadership, but I am grateful for the answer to a heart felt prayer. I now stand with Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma. God help us all!!!
@@nadingos Well said! The church shouldn’t…but obviously WILL…ignore this. They dismiss these concerns as people “losing their faith” or being “lazy learners”…SO unbelievably condescending. They preach repentance, but as a church and as a literal matter of policy (according to Oaks), refuse to.
Just like the priesthood and temple ban were reversed I have hope that the church’s stance will change on this as well. The church has so many scholars, let alone the Joseph Smith Papers Project. I think it will inevitable, with scholarship, that the church’s historical stance on this will change.
@@brianbrown2237 Agree. Although it will definitely rattle the members and require a great deal of humility and repentance. Truth is worth it! Let’s submit to this cleansing process, because on the other side of it is greater light and truth.
It is so sad that you think the Church and its first seven prophets were evil for 100 years. But somehow, it can be "reformed" after 125 years. People say "the Lord will never allow the prophet to lead us astray"? How about Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph F Smith, ... Heber J Grant? They were all wrong, evil masterminds. But somehow, God, chose to straighten out His Church 20 prophets later? That is absurd.
Mosiah 11: 2 “he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And did cause his people to commit sin.” Did Brigham Young read this and believe it? NO. Listen to the Prophet Jacob: “This people [if we liken the scriptures to ourselves in these last days, what did Brigham Young do?] begin to wax in iniquity [starting with a lie]; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son” (Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:23). “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” (Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:24)!
@@kencard777 He is talking of King Noah. He was wicked, and the Lord did not give him his wives and concubines. This is not comparable to Brigham Young
@@whazthatusay The Lord never gave anyone "many wives and concubines" The sleep upon our people is deep, and we must arise and awaken. We are still under condemnation for not harkening to what we have received, even the covenant of the Book of Mormon.
You forgot Jocob 2:30 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will "command" my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things As Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were and imho are still prophets and they were commanded of and by the Lord for His people to raise up seed unto Him, the Lord, we may now disagree with it but at the last day will not be able to deny that He, the Lord, did directly command His people via His prophets.
@@magapefarmshomestead6453 you have reading comprehension issues. But the good news is you can learn to overcome those issues. Briefly... "these things" consistently only refers to one thing in this chapter, the whoredoms and abomination of, many wives and concubines. (aka, the things they "ought not to have done") In verse 30, the preceding conditional clause - "for if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people"--- lacks adversative markers establishing its nature to be in contrariety to what was previously stated. "Otherwise" isn't introducing a clause counter to a conditional clause adversative to the prevenient text. "Otherwise" is a conjunctive adverb, introducing an adverbial clause of condition, expressing what will happen if a certain condition is not met. It's in indicative mood. It isn't acting as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "command my people" in the apodosis of the previous clause. It's not indicating that the command is in a different manner or in antithesis. If it were, the subordinate clause "they shall hearken unto these things" would then lack a proper coordinating conjunction linking it to the previous part of sentence. Even then, it still lacks an adversative marker; "for" isn't adversative and isn't interposing something in contrariety to the previous text.
I for one choose to believe Joseph. Everything I know about him reveals him as a moral, righteous, and honest man. If God commanded him to practice polygamy, he wouldn’t have denied it, let alone go slinking around behind his wife’s back for trysts with teenage girls and married women. He would have proclaimed it openly just like he did the First Vision. Remember what he said about that: “I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.” How do you reconcile his declaration on the first vision with the claims of his cowardice, lies, and of sneaking behind Emm’a back when it comes to practicing polygamy? It doesn’t fit with his character. He wasn’t a coward or a hypocrite, and the certainly wasn’t a liar. He tried to root out polygamy wherever he found it in the church, even excommunicating those who practiced it. It would make him a hypocrite as well as a liar to do this if he was practicing it privately. Michelle, has done considerable research on this topic of polygamy. She goes to the original source documents and has a solid understanding of this period of church history. I am saddened and dismayed at the hateful comments that are pointed at her. In my opinion it doesn’t show LDS members in a good light. It is amazing to me how people who proclaim to follow Jesus, can be so hateful and vengeful.
It’s pretty apparent that Michelle has done considerable research but intentionally avoids the data that directly invalidates her claims. But I’m really happy she was on. We need these bad ideas exposed.
Thank you for that. Yes I agree on the Prophet Joseph Smith. We just don't like talking about him in the church. After trying to stomach these two for a few moments, the scripture came to mind..."ye shall have no disputations among you"....and this "interview" was more like Jerry Springer than any true doctrine and definitely DID NOT bring any spirit of truth or light by either one of them. "Itching ears" come to mind. What does this have to do with anything in our current lives moving forward? Nothing. Just fodder for the spiritually weak. No winner here, just discontent.
@@ca417pc9I’ve watched many of her videos. She doesn’t discount any evidence. She not only shows the evidence, but finds out what was happening historically at that time. One of the fascinating episodes to me was on the Whitney letter, which those who claim that Joseph practiced and taught polygamy point to as THE smoking gun. She retraced Joseph’s and Emma’s steps on the days preceding the letter and put it in context of what was going on at the time.
@@ca417pc9 Michelle was answering the questions Greg asked. If she is missing anything she has invited anyone on her podcast to engage. I have studied Brian Hales work, his best arguments and frankly it has been debunked on excellent scholarship. If you want to talk cherry picking, how come no one on the monogomy denier side is talking about the document called, "The Voice of Innocence?" Look up the transcript. It condemns every possible rendition of polygamy. This was voted on and accepted by the entire body of the Church in April of 1844, approx 2 months before the martyrdom. Joseph Smith presided, his voice was giving him issues so Phelps read it. The Joseph Smith papers won't include it in that portion of the papers. But Sidney Rigby is recorded to have commented that happened and the 2 AMENS to it are both recorded on those conference papers. Instead, The Church historians file it in 2 other places. One in the Relief Society minutes, and they imply Emma is the engine but the paperwork does not support their misleading narrative. Emma had it posted in the paper as was customary for Church policy. The 1844 printing of the D&C had been paused. Considering this was Joseph Smith's process and what we know he was doing to fight polygamy at the time--it is not a high leap to assume he had planned to insert this document to fortify the Lord's law of marriage, monogamy, in the D&C. But He was arrested and the presses did not resume until after the martyrdom. And oddly, it was not inserted but other items were. Ask Brian Hales why he ignores this document....
Brigham lied about Emma trying to kill Joseph, he lied about Oliver Cowdrey being a polygamist, he lied about Joseph saying that Hyrum would lead the church to hell, he lied about Emma conspiring with the mob to kill Joseph. I’m sure Greg would agree that these are lies. But lie about polygamy? No way, that’s just not possible….
@@knelson3326 That’s the attitude that is dangerous. It’s one thing to sustain leaders and follow their council when they lead in righteousness. It’s quite another to blindly obey and live in fear rather than speak out when you see a problem. I hope you don’t feel like you can’t think for yourself.
@@Commenter2121 The only thing I fear is your spiritual well-being. The point of sustaining is to forgive our leaders’ weaknesses. I don’t follow blindly, but doing so would be better than accusing them like Lucifer.
The daughter of Don Carlos didn't believe polygamy was of God. She wrote letter trying to convince her cousin Joseph F Smith that it was wrong. At 1:32
@@jacbox3889Why did the Lord provide for it in the Law of Moses then? Why didn’t Jesus nor any of his apostles in the New Testament ever condemn it? The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that plural marriage is part of His law and part of the New and Everlasting Covenant.
@@oshemer5066 JACOB 1-3 and Jeremiah 23 will answer your question I think. Here is the LORD speaking through JACOB, condemning past, present and future polygamy: 1:17 Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having FIRST OBTAINED MY ERRAND FROM THE LORD. 2:2...I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God. 22:5...know that by the help of the all powerful creator of heaven and earth I can tell you concerning your thoughts... 2:9...strict commandments which I have receive from God... 2:10...I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations....and under the piercing eye of the Almighty God. 2:11...I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, THUS CAME THE WORD UNTO ME SAYING: "Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and declare the word of which I SHALL GIVE THEE...2:12 ...this is the word which I declare unto you...2:23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. for BEHOLD< THIS SAITH THE LORD: "This people begin to wax in iniquity; THEY UNDERSTAND NOT THE SCRIPTURES, FOR THE SEEK TO EXCUSE THEMSELVES IN COMMITTING WHOREDOMS, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. -----NOTE: right here people claim that Jacob was wrong and didn't have the latest light and knowledge about David, Solomon, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. Jacob makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR IT IS THE LORD REVEALING THESE WORDS. This just highlights one of the many theological contridictions of 132.... Now I continue with the exact words the LORD GAVE TO JACOB: 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable to me, SAITH THE LORD. 25 Wherefore, THUS SAITH THE LORD, I HAVE LED THIS PEOPLE FORTH OUT OF THE LAND OF JERUSALEM, BY THE POWER OF MY ARM, THAT I MIGHT RAISE UP UNTO ME A RIGHTEOUS BRANCH FROM THE FRUIT OF THE LOINS OF JOSEPH. 26 Wherefore, I THE LORD GOD WILL NOT SUFFER that this people shall do like unto them of old. ((HMM Them of old is a very encompassing net--bringing them to the new world for a fresh start to establish a RIGHTEOUS people through MONOGAMY)) 2:27 Wherefore my brethren, and HEARKEN TO THE WORD OF THE LORD: "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 for I THE LORD GOD, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; THUS SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS, OR CURSED BE THE LAND FOR THEIR SAKES." ((note--there are actually 3 commandments that are addressed in this talk: pride, not caring for the poor and desiring/obtaining any more than one wife/concubines. Elder Bednar just said in conference, The Book of Mormon is a futuristic book and written for OUR DAY. I would add, that the Lord was already condemning the Church for not heeding The book of Mormon 2 years after the organization. I think Jacob makes it clear these are the LORD GOD OF HOSTS words condemning polygamy in the past, present, future, the old world and the new world. And remember, out of the thousands of records Mormon culled, Jacob's talk condemning polygamy made the cut. Another good one is Jeremiah 23...talking about the latter days. Another is D&C section 101 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants law on marriage and it became 109 in the 1844 version at the time of the martyrdom. It stayed in the D& C until 1876 when D&C 132 was added. Now, The Book of Mormon went through some changes under Brigham. Footnotes were added, changes to how chapters and verses, some text changes and narratives added to influence how people were to interpret the doctrines. Jacobs talk really suffers because people do not read the full talk in context and it makes it much easier to wrest or twist the doctrines. A footnote was made to cause people to stumble and interpret Jacob as saying sometimes polygamy is authorized and footnotes to the brand new D&C132. One of the beauties of scripture study is the lively way the Spirit can speak to us at different eras and times of our lives and times in the world. The narratives are restrictive and sometimes lead our study astray. Personally I wish they would remove them, and also revisit how Jacob 1-3 is chopped up. Now we get to verse 30 and people like to pluck it out of 3 chapters which were just one chapter, and remove it from its context and claim this talk actually is teaching the opposite of what it is teaching. Astonishing. Then the Lord explains WHY his law of marriage is monogamy--because it breaks the tender hearts of women and fathers lose the confidence of their children. And this plays out in every scriptural account of polygamy and there is a great deal of evidence this is how it played out in modern times and continues unfortunately to play out. I stand with Elder Bednar, lets believe The Book of Mormon. I don't assume that all the apostles support 132. President Hinckley said on national television with Larry King, and I recall my jaw dropping at the time, that he did not think polygamy was doctrinal. It really puzzled for a long time until I read about the removal of the Priesthood ban. Hope that helps.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c president Hinckley saying it’s not doctrine can also be interpreted to mean “it’s not a current teaching (doctrine) and practice of our church. You can argue it either way pretty easily IMO.
Great interview and allowing your guest to talk. Thank you also for your honest pushback while still being respectful to someone we obviously disagree with.
Several years ago I read the book Putting on Christ and felt very compelled to seek the face of Christ. I spent a lot of time in the scriptures, the temple and in prayer. In asking God what he wanted me learn polygamy kept coming up. I had been fine with polygamy, wasn't excited to practice it, but had excepted it. So finally I started a very long and intense study of it and was very shocked at what I learned. I had assumed God wanted me to study it because he was going to bring it back. What I learned was the exact opposite. I no longer believe God ever commanded anyone to ever practice it and I no longer believe Joseph Smith ever practiced it. I had a very strong witness in the temple and also had a very special dream with Joseph and Emma explaining that they need to be exonerated! I'm still and active temple going member. My testimony is actually stronger!
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c Wow! I love that. None of God's children are an object to Him. If men were to put the shoe on the other foot, and consider the possibility that righteous women who have gone through life in a mostly subservient and often beaten down status to men throughout almost all of human history, that for their suffering they will be exalted in the next life and be blessed and glorified by having the privilege to be sealed to multiple men, and men will have the honor of serving with one wife among many of her other husbands …then that might not seem so exalted for men who believe in polygamy. [One of the reasons I try to treat my wife as nicely as I know how to (and she says I’ve gotten better over the years). I’m just trying to hedge my bet to make sure that she’ll want to be with me in the next life.]
Thank you for sharing this! Heavenly Father has also answered my question about polygamy…years ago. It has made it so much easier for me to totally embrace Heavenly Father and His guidance in my life
@@tennisgirl57 why would all 12 boys of Israel be under the covenant if polygamy wasn’t valid, only Leah‘s sons would be under the covenant. Also, how could you trust the temple ceremony if you don’t if you think from Brigam on they were lying. Also, you have to answer about Fannie Alger. All real historians say that Joseph practice polygamy and there is a lot of evidence.
We have dozens of recorded contemporary instances of Joseph, Emma and Hyrum denying, condemning and fighting against polygamy. I believe Joseph was honest.
Is it possible in your view that they condemned and fought against the unauthorized use of plural marriage, but not the authorized use? And if they believed God commanded it, it was not only okay but necessary?
@@jaredshipp9207 "Evening at home and walked up and down the street with my scribe. Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives. On this, Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife." Joseph Smith, 5 October 1843
@@HistoricalMonogamyDoctrine "if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. If he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment" God, July 12, 1843, as recorded in D&C 132
21 Min. With all due respect, my question for Greg would be, "How close was Joseph to Joseph? How close was Emma to Joseph? How close was Hyrum to Joseph?" All three of them were clear in their contemporary, verifiable statements regarding polygamy. They said polygamy was wrong; an abomination. Yes, the reality is that there had to be someone lying. It was either Joseph, Emma and Hyrum or those who were pushing for polygamy. I believe Joseph, Emma and Hyrum.
That's such a load of crap. None of you "I believe Joseph crowd" really believe Joseph. It's not like you say, "Well l, while I don't believe Joseph instituted plural marriage, Brigham was also a prophet and had the prophetic mantle to do it." No, your immediately conclusion is that if Joseph didn't start it, it wasn't legitimate. Which shows its about the issue for you, not what Joseph did or didn't do. Each of you revisionists would throw Joseph under the bus just as fast as you have Brigham and other prophets.
@@jaredshipp9207 Name one prophet of the restoration that has anywhere near the connection to heaven that Joseph did. I believe Joseph because I believe the BOM, temple, Pearl of great Price, JST, work for the dead. I believe Joseph when he said “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one”, because I see the fruits of his work as the fruits of Christ.
@@4rcgoodwin And that kind of faulty thinking is why we have people writing off everything from Brigham Young, eventually apostatizing and cutting themselves off from the Church, while telling themselves they are being loyal to Joseph and the Restoration.
One thing that people don't clarify enough is dynastic sealings. A lot of people equate sealing with marriage, but a large part of the confusion is the fact the Joseph was practicing dynastic sealings, the same as one person might be sealed to their parents to create a "web" of the exalting ordinance. Not marriage!
@christhompson2034 I was taught this years ago. Sealing for exaltation. Then, as I understand it, it was clarified that they are sealed to their own spouse, not the prophet, and corrections were made for married women to be sealed to their own husband's, or single sisters when they eventually got married.
Why did the LDS Church change this word, “fathers”? Are you aware that Jacob 3:5 says: "for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father” (singular) [It should say "fathers" (plural) but the LDS Church removed “fathers” in the 1981 Printing going forward] “-that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none,” [In the 1835 Book of Mormon it says "Fathers" because the commandment to have only one wife was the commandment going all the way back to Adam and Eve and forward to this present day, [all the fathers]. All past, present, and future generations are to have one wife]. This has always been the law of God in a marriage relationship. (Book of Mormon | Jacob 1-3)!
If polygamy was bad since the days of Adam that would mean Abraham was a sinner and committing sin and this verse cannot be true: "5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5)
@Hmcc0712 your answer contrifmdicts what the scriptures and God say. You just made that answer up. And for the record, Abraham had his name changed while he was still a practicing polygamist and "culturally" the people were practicing Sodomy and yet God befriended, appeared to and blest a polygamist but destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Your ownswer is totally wrong, and a strong reason I reject Evangelical Christianty. Those made up answers are common for them.
@@EKowallis I'm not against either one of them. I'm just tired of all the contention. Polygamy is such a difficult topic and i think there is... truth on both sides.
@@EKowallis Contention is born in anger and/or vanity. You are right that contending with things, true or not in friendly conversation is not contention. :>)
Ether 10: 5 “Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines” Did those who lived polygamy read this?!
@@kencard777 remember if there are any scriptures where someone ever practiced it, we can perform amazing mental gymnastics to prove they were exceptions so we don’t have to face the tough reality of making a mistake. Almost like we are anti repentance.
Thank you Greg for allowing Michelle to speak! I may be one of the few members of the LDS church who rejects polygamy but remains active in church, I hold a calling, I attend the temple as often as I can (I love the temple!!!) I believe Russell M. Nelson is a prophet. I sustain the 12 apostles and I’m looking forward to listening to the messages this conference weekend. I believe the best sources for truth on the topic of polygamy are the Book of Mormon and what Joseph and Hyrum had to say about it. I feel the same way about polygamy as I do about the priesthood ban… we got it wrong! Let us repent and move on!
You're not alone! Most of us reject polygamy in our hearts but hold onto it for fear of what it might mean about our leaders and our faith tradition. But fear and love cannot coexist. We must choose one or the other
@@justinbarnum6442 trust me you are not one of the few. There are way more who believe this but are silent because of the attacks they’d receive. At least half the church believes polygamy was false.
What Michelle says about a woman not giving her whole heart to her husband because she is afraid she will have to share him later. I have struggled immensely with this throughout an otherwise very happy marriage.
Jojo, my heart goes out to you having such a worry. One thing I've learned in life is that we sometimes unintentionally create our own misery through our own worries. I've done it. And in my case it's destroyed marriages. Just know that the power is in you to free yourself from this. It's not the doctrine/practice, it's the way you view it and deal with it. If I were to suggest a book, I would suggest 'the mindful path to self-compassion' by Christopher Germer. The first half of that book was eye-opening to me to understand how we create our own misery with what we ruminate on.
@@charinabottae Generally, I agree with your statement. However regarding polygamy, this is just another “your feelings are the problem, not the doctrine” statement, which is completely false. The doctrine and practice of polygamy itself is destructive. That has been thoroughly researched and proven across time.
Greg, I really appreciate you being brave enough to have Michelle on. She's probably studied this topic more than about anyone else at this point. I do get that it's really heavy and kind of a red pill but Michelle has volumes and volumes more of information that leads to her beliefs on this subject. I do appreciate the common ground you guys both found where it's acknowledged that polygamy would be hard and a lot of us men wouldn't want it.
@@ancientcosmicclock she has cherry picked her sources. She spins every point to fit the narrative she wants, and puts her own spin over the revelation to the prophets seers and revelators. She contorts the plain and simple wording of Jacob 2:30, as interpreted by Prophets, to mean something completely different.
@g71816 haven't both sides cherry picked? If we are honest, there are a lot of contradicting accounts and narratives in regards to polygamy. If you take every first-hand account of Joseph, talks, unedited journal entries, his personal notes in his BoM, all of it, are not for polygamy but anti-polygamy. She's one of the voices defending Joseph, and not labeling him a liar. The anti-mormons are picking the church apart on this subject, and waves of people are leaving over this, because they think Joseph was dishonest, and calling him a pedophile. Can't you see that she's defending him? What do you suggest she do?
@@g71816 Sorry but that accusation does not hold water. Michelle has sought to address every piece of evidence out there. She has also come forward with a boatload of new, very credible evidence and oddly is being snubbed. It is Jacob 1-3 that is being chopped up and misrepresented. And the evidence is, you cherrypicked one verse out of a very plain and simple talk, the words of which were the Lords own to Jacob. Quit wresting the scriptures to support a house of cards narrative. Thank you.
@@ancientcosmicclock Michelle has invited anyone on her show to present any missing evidence. So if you want to accuse her of cherrypicking, come on her show and bring your stuff.
The way she speaks to those who disagree with her, including new convert David Alexander, is vitriolic, not mention how she is openly disrespectful and antagonistic towards the prophet with her fruit loops leprechaun meme, she embodies contention and pride. ETA: around 7:00 she essentially sets herself up as knowing better than the prophet who is deceived. I do think we should look into history, and be very careful about claiming truth exclusive to our own present perceptions (paying attention to the attitude with which we talk to and treat others. )
I love David Alexander, but the church admits that the leaders of the church were misinformed about blacks and the priesthood for many years. We also believe John Taylor was misinformed about his revelation that polygamy could never be abandoned by the church.
@@TheFamilyLife6No, David Alexander was so far off base in his attack on Michele Stone. He is so misinformed and the clips he used more fully condemned his view while strengthening Michele’s approach. Her responses to her critics have been very respectful. Especially when Jacob Hanson, who I follow and have great respect for, dishonestly misrepresented what she presented. This “polygamy denier” view (an epitaph to associate with Holocaust denier) will continue to grow exponentially and the church will have to deal with it because the truth is on the side that Joseph never taught or practiced polygamy. As the historical documents come to light, this is just undeniable and actually brought me great relief. Regardless of the position one holds, what was most shocking to me, who read and accepted all the Gospel Topic essays, and had no previous position, and only looked at this because of a very close friend leaving the church when she studied the historical record as a seminary teacher, what shocked me the most was how deceptive our church had been. Brian Hales, who wrote the Gospel Topic essays, just lied about what the historical record says. He hid and misrepresented documents that countered his view. That opened my eyes to really study this issue and my position changed. Michele Stone is a terrible communicator, it there are many others who just make the documents available so that we can read Joseph Smiths own words, read Hyrum Smith’s own talk given in conference in 1844 completely against polygamy. His remarks against polygamy were removed from the official church history. But we have the talk as it was given. For me, this was such a relief. I no longer have to defend what my heart always told me was an abomination. Polygamy did not come from Joseph Smith. He vehemently fought against it. Now that the full historical record is coming out, we can cleanse this chapter from the church just as we cleansed Brigham’s view of Adam God, blacks and the priesthood etc. We will be so much the better for it and can hopefully come out from the condemnation spoken of by the Lord that we need to not only say, but do what the Book of Mormon teaches. Polygamy is a big one that needs to be repented of.
Jacob 2:30 is not a loophole. Every time “things” is mentioned in that chapter it refers to whoredoms and abominations. Look it up. Then if the Lord doesn’t command his people (to be monogamous) they will hearken unto these things (whoredoms and abominations). Polygamy is not a godly principle. Early leaders got it wrong. It’s ok to discard it and believe that the best place to build Zion is within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This! Yes!!! There is no bloody loophole in Jacob. That verse is quite literally the summation of the entire chapter and quite possibly the center of a chiasma.
@@nadingos If you look at the practice of polygamy throughout the scriptures and in Utah, you will find not only the abomination of polygamy that Jacob warned about, but pride, not hearing the cries of the women and children, and not caring for the poor. And if you question the not caring and not hearing, and the pride, consider that Utah also was a SLAVE STATE and Brigham Young used his Church authority unrighteously to make that happen. Fortunately, the Lord's other inspired document, the constitution--and a group of caring women not of our faith, worked to get the attention of the United States Government and the Public to shut polygamy down or we would likely still be living it today.
@stevebaer-eicpr This is the best explanation I've learned about for Jacob 2:30 not being a loophole. In verses 23, 24 & 34 it does relate "thing" to unrighteously taking of wives and concubines, and in verse 25 it references Lehi leading the people out of the land of Jerusalem to raise up righteous see. Thanks.
How can you say that the original 101 “one man one wife” makes room for polygamous marriage when it literally says this…. ….”Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin…..” Women were also encouraged to leave their husbands (even members of the church) to be in polygamous marriages if they can find someone with “higher keys.” What about these sources??
And ironically, Joseph and Hyrum taught that a man or woman should not leave their non believing spouse to join the Saints. They understood that families needed to stay together.
What year was this created? It wasn't in response to the Nauvoo Era... have you studied why this particular section was added? What aspects of marriage in early Colonial America was experiencing? This quote is used AS IF it was in response to Nauvoo which it wasn't.
@@zionssuburb This was written in 1835 as a response to accusations against the Saints in Ohio, during a time they were accused of polygamy due to many cochranites joining the church, and due to the law of consecration. It was reiterated in Nauvoo multiple times as result of continued polygamy accusations in Nauvoo. Cowdrey was gone by Nauvoo so the continued use of this statement shows that it was repeatedly perpetrated with Joseph’s support up until his death.
Greg, I appreciate your willingness to engage with good faith actors who have a different perspective or your outright disagree with. While there were some moments that the both of you got emotional (it's a very emotional topic), you both handled it well.
At the hour mark, Greg is being ridiculous. He ignores D&C 42 “he shall cleave unto her and NONE else” and then argues that polygamous marriage (poly = many) is still an agreement between one man and one woman. Sheer wresting of the scriptures. I agree that polygamous marriages were not agreements between one man and all his wives at once, but you cannot ignore D&C 42. “None else.”
No, you’re missing what he is saying. He is saying those women were not sealed to more than one man which would be polyandry. They were married for time to one man and then sealed to another man to make dynastic connections for the afterlife which is how they understood it at that time. Polygamy is one man sealed to many women, polyandry is one woman sealed to many men; as those early Saints understood it. The women weren’t sealed to more than one man n their lifetime therefore they didn’t practice polyandry. That was his point.
@@amynazzaThis is more evidence that 132 is NOT of God. Christ did not encourage men to build kingdoms for themselves in the afterlife. He did not even want his apostles considering who would have the most important position in relation to Him.
It is called WOKE MATH. I live in California. 1 plus 1 and 1 plus 1 can equal either 2 or 4--it is up for interpretation... And, it would be racist to focus on getting the correct answer.
Just starting but I want to say that I really appreciate and respect you, Greg, for having Michelle on to explain her views herself. If men having many wives and concubines is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we each need to embrace it and defend it with everything we’ve got. If it isn’t, we must change our minds. It will be much better for us all if we get aligned with God’s view of this doctrine before standing before God ourselves.
I agree with this, 100%. This is a difficult issue at best. I don't think either side of the debate is slam dunk, and I wish we could discuss this with that understanding. Neither side is without evidence, so we should all come to the table with a willingness to sift through and assess the credibility of the various bits of evidence.
@@OmahaAreaLoya Yes, you really can find enough evidence on both sides to justify a choice of belief. Just like believing in a higher power or atheism, the golden rule or the survival of the fittest. I strongly believe this is intentional on God’s part. What kind of world and heaven do we want? If we could choose, would we choose this?
@@gwendolynwyne please do a response video- I’m dying over the false assumptions and that those who haven’t even really looked into this just dismiss it saying it can’t be true and is just an emotional response to not wanting polygamy.
@@gwendolynwyne completely. This “doctrine of many wives and concubines” needs to be investigated with both being possible. Especially considering Joseph Smiths own words. I have believed both ways and I am very at peace now with the way God has shown to me. It is in line with the scriptures.
What a tremendous interview! Thanks Greg, for lending your platform to a consideration of Truth on tough and precarious subjests. Michelle, thanks for your level-headedness, courage and boldness! I very much enjoyed the prductive coversation!
When Greg says at the hour mark “I don’t want anything to do with it” shows his own soul is testifying to him how gross it is. Why say that if there is nothing wrong with it? It’s the light of Christ testifying to you.
I saw a short of one of these polygamy deniers. He said the way you know the “truth” was taught to him. He said to take off your garments and then pray about it. Sounds like a perfect recipe to be deceived! For me, evidence that she has been deceived includes her inability to finish any of his counter arguments to its logical conclusion, the chaotic method in which she presents her arguments, bouncing from one to the other evidence when one is challenged, and her attacking the absolute wrong part of Greg’s counter arguments, blowing up portions that have nothing to do with his point. She is all chaos and confusion. That is not the Spirit. I myself tend to be chaotic, but when I have the Spirit of the Lord with me and it is necessary to do so, I can make concise and direct points that make perfect sense. It’s a fruit of the Spirit.
How about read the book of Mormon? Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Hagar absolutely was a slave. See Galatians 4:22-23 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Correct. Hagar and her son mocked Isaac and Sarah. Sarah was within her legal and spiritual rights. In the matrilineal patriarchy, it was Sarah's duty, authority and responsibility to birth, select and train up the next patriarch. It was not Abraham's right. This is also why Rebecca chose Jacob over Esau. There was no deception. It was her God given choice.
Thank you, Greg, for having Michelle on! She has done so much research on this! When I read Jacob's sermon even way back on my mission, it is so plain that polygamy is an abomination, a whoredom and a grosser crime. God wouldn't be OK and then not OK with changing doctrine. God speaks plainly and is unchanging. This now makes so much sense to me and speaks to my heart.
Are you still LDS? I’m so THANKFUL to believe neither. Each side makes God, Jesus, Joseph Smith, or the current LDS church and prophets A-holes. I am so so relieved and at peace to belief none of it. Such a heartbreak to be in between this entire mess.
Greg, I love your channel! This was a ballsy interview, so I tip my hat to you. But if your going to dance with the bull, you need to do your homework. You really should have watched some of Michelle's key episodes before the interview to better inform your questions. You spent the majority of the time rehashing basic things she has addressed at nauseum on her channel. She generally does not "cherry-pick" as you assert several times. She thoroughly (and verbosely) addresses both sides of the argument and faces contrary evidence fairly. Michelle rightfully declares this to be an important topic and each of us LDS need to face it with courage, open hearts and with ears to hear. The reason your comments are filled with emotion is because this information radically changes our worldview of "modern prophets" and requires us to really scrutinize our centralized institution. For many, this information has shattered unfounded testimonies. But for others (like me) it has initiated a spiritual revival. My first reaction to this information was similar to yours. But after study and prayer, the spirit has promptly taught me. This isn't RLDS doctrine. It's simply truth. Joseph taught us to embrace truth, despite it's origin. I have no intention of leaving the church and hope that this discovery can serve as a fire that will turn us towards the Savior in a meaningful way. You seem keen to frame this topic as a binary (e.g., Brigham was either a true prophet or conspirator against Joseph's life, Abraham was either a perfect man or an adulterer). Reality (as you well know) is much more nuanced. @18:30, again your "natural trail" assumes a binary (e.g. polygamy was from God vs. a conspiratorial cabal to cover it up). Reality is always more complicated. One possible angle is that the Brighamites' justification of polygamy comes from a misunderstanding of Joseph's doctrine of sealing (here is one attempt to alternatively explain this doctrine: scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/glossary/adoption). There is strong evidence that Joseph was "sealing" people to him, both male and female. Most of the females were pregnant and husbands even participated in the ordinance [ref the work of Don Bradley]. Those that were zealous about spiritual wifery (concept adopted from other revival religions of the time) sought justification for the practice and found it in this idea of sealing. I don't think the Brighamites were necessarily explicitly "lying" about Joseph, they were simply very motivated to find a prophetic justification for their understanding. They may have even felt very strongly that the practice was righteous. The "cabal" theory is unlikely. There is a beautiful scriptural word for this phenomena: apostasy.
Thanks for commenting. I have done my homework but did not want to speak much in this interview. I'll do that another time. My goal was to let her speak and give her opinions and conclusions. I wanted to put light on this and the best way is for her to do it herself.
@@CwicShow Fair enough. Good stuff. Thanks for reading my comment. You're a good man and I really enjoy learning from you. I especially love the Bruce Porter stuff.
What if she is right? What if Brigham was a fallen prophet? Worse, what if he was no prophet at all; what if he was a usurper? Would God‘s plans be frustrated? would the entire church be false? I don’t think so. God‘s plans cannot be frustrated. The Book of Mormon remains true, no matter what. And this church remains Christ’s Church, even if imperfect, even if damaged, even if wrong in certain key instances. I know this much. The Book of Mormon says only bad things about polygamy, but it has a whole lot to say about the “remnant of Jacob.“ Jesus Christ himself, after the resurrection, and after his brief sermon on the mountain, spoke about nothing but the remnant of Jacob. That is the focus of the Book of Mormon. And it was pretty much close to the sole focus of Joseph Smith. In the fall of 1844, he planned to travel to the Rocky Mountains to find a place to live with the Lamanites, who are among the Native Americans. But he died, obviously, and then Brigham Young came to the Rocky Mountains, but he did not live peacefully with the Lamanites. The church took a hard turn into apostasy when it took on polygamy. In my view, we barely survived it. It’s a real mercy that the Lord arranged to have polygamy quashed in this church. It’s one of the proofs to me, in fact, that the Lord does direct this church. But he can do it only through imperfect humans. We do the best we can.
Mormon 8 36. ...and your churches, yea, even every one, have become POLLUTED because of the pride of your hearts. D&C 124 32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God. The Nauvoo house was never finished. Church was rejected. 3 years later, both smith prophets were murdered. D&C 124 45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. 46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they POLLUTE mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them. They did not listen and were moved from their place. All the way to SLC. The time of the gentiles is up. The gospel will go from them back to the house of israel. (3 nephi 16: 10-11)
Well said. And that is why I still believe. Alma, although a wicked priest of Noah, still held the priesthood. His power or authority wasn't truly efficacious until he repented. Michelle is correct, we are still under condemnation for not taking the Book of Mormon as seriously as we should.
@@evamat According to many, if polygamy originated from Brigham Young, it would invalidate his keys and the modern prophets. This is plainly incorrect. It is not how priesthood keys work, currently or anciently. As per the church handbook (38.2.6), unworthiness is not something that invalidates an ordinance, including ordinances that confer priesthood keys. If a stake president is excommunicated, for adultery, apostasy, or even murder, it does not invalidate any of the ordinations he performed. Otherwise, an investigation would have to be performed to discover when he became unworthy, and which ordinances and temple work would have to be redone. Alma the younger received his priesthood authority from king Noah (Msh 11:5), a man openly committing adultery and who killed Abinadi. If this does not invalidate Alma’s authority, you’ll be hard pressed to argue that Brigham’s keys would be invalidated for lying about polygamy’s origins. (Additionally, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff were ordained by Joseph, not Brigham, so it’s a null point anyways.) You might ask, “wouldn’t this mean the Catholic Church still has keys?” The answer is still no. The Catholic Church abandoned the apostolic order, relevant ordinances, and permanently adopted false creeds and doctrines. Whereas we have not, and have rejected false doctrines taught by Brigham. Ultimately, we do not believe in a gospel of perfection. Jesus died so that we might not be condemned by the mistakes of our past. Just as God is eager to forgive us of our sins individually, even heinous ones, so too is He eager to forgive us institutionally. “Ordinances of the priesthood are valid if they are performed by authorized priesthood bearers in the prescribed manner.… The ordinance does not become invalid if someone involved is unworthy at the time he participates. The sanctity of the ordinance is violated, but not the validity. ” Rex W Allred (Melchizedek General Priesthood Committee), Liahona, March 1989
I think you are wrong, Greg. Her argument is totally valid. Also if you read in the Nemenhah record, Christ Himself explains what he says about polygamy
We don’t , but how can you ignore Doctrine and Covenants 132 which agrees with Jacob 2, but goes into more detail as to why David and Solomon were condemned. Another thing you will find is that neither Jacob nor 132 condemn Abraham, Jacob, Nathaniel etc. who were involved in polygamy.
@@andrewdurfee3896 D&C 132 does not go into more detail, it is an exact fulfillment of what was warned against in Jacob 2, which says men misunderstand scripture when they try to justify the whoredom and abomination of polygamy and concubines bc of what is written of David and Solomon. D&C does just that, even using the word justify.
David and Solomon were Kings. They were not prophets. Back in those days, God told them not to marry "strange women" from other nations, especially Cannanites, because the priesthood couldn't be passed down to their children if they did so. The whole idea of Celestial Plural Marriage is to increase a righteous line of Priesthood.
@@Hmcc0712 how can you ignore Jacob chapter 2, verses 29 and 30, where God asserts that polygamy has purpose and a reason, “to raise up righteous seed” into Him, and that He can command the law of plural marriage to be in effect when necessary and appropriate. When it isn’t necessary or appropriate, we are to live the law of monogamy. The Lord decides the who, what, where, when and how the law of plural marriage is to be practiced, and these scriptures supports that fact. “Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
@@adamfoster3493the verses in polygamy in Jacob 2 are a chiasmus if you don’t interpret it that way. The only reason we do is that we were told to interpret it like this not because that’s what it’s actually saying. “These things” in context w the rest of the chapter is talking about whoredoms and abominations that god is always having to warn against otherwise people always do them.
Ok people like quotes from accusers and enemies of Joseph Smith, how about quotes from neutral parties about Brigham? Schuyler Colfax's conversation with Brigham, June 17, 1865. The matter of polygamy was brought up by Brigham, himself, and in the course of his remarks he is reported to have declared that "... the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants declared for monogamy, but that polygamy was a later revelation commanded by God to him and a few others, and permitted and advised to the rest of the church." From Schuyler Colfax's Journal, quoted in The Western Galaxy, Vol. I, p. 247. Brigham Young tells Senator Lyman Trumbull “polygamy, which you object to, was not originally a part of our system, but was adopted by us as a necessity, after we came here [Utah]” - (Brigham Young, interview with Senator Lyman Trumbull, July 10, 1869; published in Chicago Tribune July 26, 1869;)
I would tweak Brigham‘s “a little bit to be “we adopted Lume as a manner to safe journey from the Midwest, where we are persecuted to a safe land in Deseret it help us survive.
@@MBowler polygamy was not needed for survival. People could help with the poor and the widows without engaging in sexual relations with them under the guise of religion.
Another fantastic video! Thank you! I don't agree with her conclusions, but I'm glad to be able to hear her thoughts and research. Glad you did this interview.
Knowing how controversial this topic is, thanks for having Michelle on and respectfully letting her talk. She has compelling new evidence, and evidence that has been ignored that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. Thank you for facilitating the important conversation and not censoring someone you may not agree with.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c thank you! I really appreciate this. Being able to have a difference of opinion while having a civil conversation and respecting one another even after disagreeing. Building Zion… we are supposed to love those that are different than ourselves. That’s much more than tolerating. If we can’t even listen and respect, then how can we ever expect to love and care?
I'm sorry, but trying to say within polygamy marriage has always been between one man and one woman is wild. I've never heard anyone try to make that point before. Sounds a lot like John Bennetts justification for spiritual wifery. I haven't really followed Michelle Stone and don't know that much about the history of our churches polygamy, but she really was convincing here. The constant huffing and puffing from Greg reminds me of a liberal college student in a biology class.
I have a SIL who says she is fine with polygamy as long as the wives are married to each other too-meaning orgies happening under 1 roof with all individuals married to each other. This type of attitude is what Greg was referring to when he said polygamy is still made up of 1 man with individual marriages to his wives; the women aren’t married to each other. She kept interrupting him so he couldn’t describe his meaning very bluntly.
Do we "pick" what Joseph and Hyrum actually said and did, or do we "pick" what their enemies accused, or bad late recollections decades after Joseph's death alleged?
Michelle says "I would invite people to tell me what abomination does God sometimes command, that He only sometimes wants for His own purposes". Greg mentions the abomination of the murder of Laban that God commanded and she glossed right over it saying "So we need to murder the hearts of our wives and children"? What? Sorry Michelle but since you didn't seem to catch it when Greg said it, I want to highlight it again here: Besides polygamy, MURDER is also an "abomination" that God sometimes commands for His own purposes! So now you can stop saying that "God would never command an abomination".
These three verses should end the debate. Although the question posed is about divorce, Jesus’s answer is very telling. He reaffirms that the pattern from the beginning has not changed, one man and one women, leaving their father and mother and cleaving to each other. He rebukes them for resting the scriptures, which means no deviation from this was ever condoned or commanded by God. This is again confirmed in the Book of Mormon multiple times and in D&C 42. How many witnesses do we need? Matthew 19:4-6 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
And, we have zero scriptural accounts of God actually commanding polygamy. In Jacob God says he suffered and the women and children suffered. 132 is so filled with statements counter to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have only a suspect copy written in the hand of a suspect person. God is hearing the cries of us women--can the brethren open their ears? And bring it before the Lord as they did the Priesthood ban?
For what purpose? So sealings to second wives will cease? To make you feel better about history? Because it is not just the modern church history. Go listen to David Alexanders testimony. He had a problem with poligamy until the lord gave him his testimony, he even stated that he would have loved to have lived in that time, if i remember correctly. I also have a testimony of it. I think i know why this is an issue and i belive many will leave the church over it.
@@avoice423 The purpose would be for prophets, seers, and revelators to inquire with the Lord whether the latter portions of D&C 132 contain true doctrine, considering the pain it causes so many members of the church. It is similar to the priesthood ban, many leaders believed and taught false doctrine until there was enough pressure to reconsider the narrative. This is a top reason that people leave and I know many that have studied it out and prayed for comfort or confirmation of its truthfulness but feel nothing but darkness. I’ve conversed with David Alexander a number of times, he’s not the angel that so many paint him out to be. If you want to better understand why this issue is so damaging for so many, I’d encourage you to read The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy.
@@avoice423 I’d love to hear more about your testimony of polygamy and how you’ve obtained it. I’ve studied this topic for years and 1000’s of hours and the more I’ve learned the more I know it’s not from God, despite trying to understand it and make peace with it.
@@Commenter2121 why do you want to know? It seems you have already made your mind up. Go listen to David Alexanders testimony. The Lord is not going go interfere with your agency. I think the key to gaining the testimony is to be willing to except and live it if the Lord so chooses. My personal testimony is private between me and the Lord. He began telling me things over 14 years ago. It is not new to me. I am concerened many will leave the church over this issue.
thank you for such a candid, real, raw exchange. I thank both of you!!!! I love the temple and feel such great feelings there! I ask God's blessings on both of you!
I appreciate Greg’s channel but this interview shows that he is out of his depth on this topic. Some of his arguments were ridiculous and others were harder to explain away, he essentially just repeated the Jacob Hansen talking points. Michelle has shown a superior depth of knowledge in the scriptures and church history compared to Greg on this issue. People may come to different conclusions than her but she has done her homework.
@@CwicShow You yourself admit that you have not studied this out. I have and so has Michelle and I’m saying it was clear from watching you two converse that she is far more knowledgeable on this topic. No need to get offended, you admit it hasn’t been your expertise. You may not want to form set conclusions until you go deeper.
@@Commenter2121I would pit the knowledge of Brian Hales and Don Bradley against hers, all day, every day. Oh, and they aren’t apostates trying to denounce our current and former prophets.
@@istj509 That’s fine. Michelle has had Brian Hales on her podcast and Don Bradley has been on multiple times. They all know the sources and the material very well and Michelle holds her own. I’ve found that those who study this topic in depth generally know much more about church history and the scriptures than your average member does.
I have enjoyed this episode and appreciated that you treated each other with respect. I am familiar with much of Michelles's well researched work and believe that she is indeed seeking to find truth.
Interestingly, for years the Community of Christ rejected the idea that Joseph was married to multiple wives. They have since accepted that he probably did, even though he, Emma and the leaders of church from testified from the pulpit that there was a doctrine that taught polygamy.
I don't think the Community of Christ church has authority to officiate in the saving ordinances we receive in the temple. That is paramount above all else.
Greg, I love the episodes where you dig into politics; however, this was painful. Michelle Stone is an expert on this topic. She knows the scriptures, history, and every other detail about this crazy topic. Any other expert would present the information as if they were the expert and not be challenged by someone who doesn't have her knowledge. While it's a huge time commitment, I think it would be helpful for you to watch all her episodes, look at the references, and then ask the questions. BTW, polygamy has wrecked havoc among many men in the way Michelle described. You're fortunate to now know any of them.
Over where I live we're surrounded by them. It's so potent that the practice of it is frequently brought up. People believe it is coming back and if it is coming back (be it from God or not) we better find out for ourselves so we can defend the truth. Seeing what I've seen and knowing what I know, the Book of Mormon is right. It is a whoredom and abomination!
The Church not addressing the polygamy narrative bolsters all those still practicing it and all the abuses. Now that I have spent the time to review all put forward by Brian Hales, the Church's leading experts, Don Bradley, and others on his side--And all Michelle's work along with Whitney Horning and Jeremy Hoop--and studied every scripture relating--it is difficult to understand how it is we cannot dispose of this once and for all! Stop the bleeding... Stop the cries of the women and children--and men.
Yes Greg is not familiar enough with the crazy amount of details on the subject. Unfortunately, that was exposed with bad reasoning and arguments and ignorant challenges.
But we are so grateful that he did have Michelle on! Others choose not to have her on their platforms because they know she knows her stuff. They would rather just talk about her instead, Jacob Hanson.
You, the commenters agreeing with you and absolutely Michelle does not understand her scriptures. Or should I say... will not understand them. Righteous plural marriage has never been a sin as is proven by the scriptures.
Michelle seems to be pretty genuine. I understand that she wants to find truth, and not hurt people’s faith. But at the same time, it’s a flag for me that she won’t state what she thinks because it’ll hurt people’s feelings, like if she thought the “Utah Mormons” killed Joseph. Just say what you think. We all want to be truth seekers until we’re asked is it true, then people like Michelle throw a word salad at people. And she never acknowledged that she was cherry picking information. Her whole premise starts with character assassinating the members who went over with Brigham, and implying that Joseph was a Saint. Then all of her arguments are valid because what comes from Utah can’t be trusted.
@@CwicShowyou’re just not being honest. You are trying to trap someone using words but the context is horribly misrepresented. What did God mean when he told Adam to cleave to Eve and become one flesh? What does it mean in D&C 42 when we are told to cleave into your spouse and NONE ELSE. What does it mean when the scriptures tell us God speaks plainly? No mental gymnastics or ‘carefully worded denials’ like you just made are of God. Knock it off if you want to be taken seriously.
Agreed! This was ludicrous. Go read the words of your Savior, he who looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart.... Except for when it's one woman at a time. Because he can only lust after one woman at a time regardless of the covenant contracts he has made with his wife.... Right? Smack my face. Yeah the family and marriage are literally at stake. Bizarre!
Michelle is awesome. I’m grateful for all her hard work. We should not lay polygamy at Joseph’s feet- especially when he himself publicly denounced the practice. It’s actually really cut and dry. Joseph was either a liar, a lethario and a pedophile… or he was telling the truth, and was not a polygamist. Polygamy is an abomination. Similar to other abominations BY introduced (like blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, Adam God, etc)
In order to believe the LDS narrative, you have to believe that God commanded his prophet, a married man, to go behind his wife's back and marry teenage girls, and then lie publicly about it. Is that the kind of prophet you want to believe in? Is that the kind of God you want to believe in?
You also have to believe God has set up a caste system for women, according to D& C 132. That some of us women are destined to become concubines! Seriously, read 132, it is that ridiculous, as it calls itself, the doctrine of many wives and concubines! So interesting that Christ never taught of this method of kingdom building...
@BridgeBuilder-x4c there are SOmany problems with D&C 132! Anyone with the tiniest bit of knowledge of Jesus Christ's teachings and a drop of discernment can see that 132 is a fraud. I am embarrassed that our church leaders have propped up this false doctrine for so long.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c He actually did. There to become a high priest in Ancient Israel, would be highly unusual without living plural marriage. Christ being perfect had to obey every law. Do tje worls of Anraham. Chances are very high that He (Christ) lived/lives that law. Again, Search deep enough and be humble enough to accept the truth. This is one of tje main reasons people left the church and killed Joseph in tje Nauvoo days. Dont make the same mistake. Doesnt wnd well for those who reject Gods prophets.
My heart is sad as I read through the comments here. As brothers and sisters can we feel the love of our Savior for one another? Can we pray for each other to find truth? Knowing whether or not God commands His children to live polygamy is very important because it is a direct reflection of the character and nature of our God. I believe that He is a God of love and He cares very deeply about the feelings of His children. Through much research and learning, I can now see in the scriptures and through sources of church history (Joseph Smith Papers) that polygamy is not a commandment from God and never has been! When I asked the Lord if Joseph practiced polygamy, I received a beautiful dream where He showed me that Joseph did not practice polygamy and he only loved Emma. I believe that the research and online sharing Michelle and others are doing is literally a manifestation of scripture that the truth is being shouted from the rooftops! The fruit of this truth is so beautiful! I am grateful for a loving God that cares deeply about the tender hearts of his daughters. 💕 If we won’t soften our hearts and open our eyes to the possibility of another narrative than this “false tradition of men” that we have been taught about polygamy, we will end up fulfilling the prophecies in the Book of Mormon that were given for us! Please don’t trust in the arm of flesh (as we are warned of in the Book of Mormon) to tell you what is true. Ask the Lord! This is my prayer for you all 🙏
Anyone that argues that Joseph didn't practice polygamy has to also argue that Joseph recieved false revelations and was likely decieved by Satan to ordain wicked men to be his quorum of apostles and lead the church who conspired to lie about polygamy and abuse women. You are basically shooting yourself in the foot and destroying Joseph's prophetic powers.
@@justinbosley692 But we don’t have to believe he was a liar and adulterer, and Brigham was above reproach. Unlike all of the general authorities and the vast majority of the church, I choose to believe Joseph, Hyrum and Emma. If, in the end, I’m wrong about their integrity? Well…then I have much bigger problems to wrestle than Joseph’s marital status.
@@justinbosley692 No. All of Joseph’s revelations on polygamy were against it’s practice…repeatedly calling it an abomination, in keeping with scripture. Joseph, very obviously, didn’t write 132. A ten year old could compare the writing in 132 to ANYTHING Joseph took down and see it’s worlds apart in difference. Repeatedly…over and over again… in private record AND in public utterances, he adamantly eschewed polygamy and threatened its proponents and practitioners with disciplinary measures.
She is right. Joseph Smith was only married to Emma. In a copy of the Book of Mormon, he wrote "One Wife" in the margin. In History of The Church published by Deseret Book on behalf of the church in 1980, Joseph has his scribe write down to hold those accountable that teach, preach or practice polygamy. So she is right that Joseph Smith was NOT a polygamist. The sealings to women were NOT marriages, but Law of Adoption sealings that has nothing to do with marriage, but rather being sealed to Priesthood leaders as a church family. Wilford Woodruff changed this is 1894 to be sealings to father's rather than Priesthood leaders. So Joseph Smith was NOT a polygamist at all!
Wow. So many thoughts and comments that I'd like to express. She's interesting and frustrating at the same time. At 1:10:39, is it just me, or does it seem like she was waiting for that moment when Greg opens the door by saying she's making an "emotional argument"? She was waiting to play that trump card... God cherishes the tender feelings of women, so how dare you say my argument is emotional?! Silly man, you don't know anything about emotions! I agree with Greg, I've never once known any man that thinks it would be great to have plural wives. My saying to my wife of 36 years is, "You are the perfect wife for me". This guest absolutely was saying men practiced polygamy simply to satisfy lust. When Greg called her on it she deflected and claimed she was just quoting Orson Pratt. She makes anecdotal claims that she has discoursed with many men that would like plural marriage. In reality this would still represent a minute fraction of all the men in the LDS Church. She continually refers to her "community", and shed a little light on what that community believes: 1)Joseph and Hyrum fought against polygamy. 2)Brigham pushed for polygamy against Joseph's wishes, and may have had a hand in he and Hyrum's murders. 3)Her community doesn't believe in the Temples(attending and worshipping in). This sounds like a community that is walking close to the edge of apostasy. One last thought... At the end, she shared that she had a powerful witness from the Holy Ghost while in the Temple at the end of the "lockdown", but it sounded like that was the last time she was there, and that many in her "community" were not happy about her going. My sincere question for her, what does that say about your community? You tell them that you had this beautiful experience in the Holy Temple, and that you know the Lord's Spirit is there, and your "community" disapproves?! Time to question your choice of community/friends.
The hypocrisy of wondering how it’s possible for Joseph F Smith to have lied, while at the same time accusing the Prophet Joseph Smith of having lied about his polygamy.
I too came from polygamous heritage and for the majority of my life believed the LDS church narrative, until I did a more thorough search and pondering of the subject. Rather than the label imposed by Greg and others as "polygamy deniers"; I'd rather, if a label must be used, be known as a "truth seeker." That being said, polygamy and Joseph Smith's involvement is a controversial and contentious topic for a lot of people, and has been the source of many falling away from the church. It seems useless trying to debate the topic using the many statements made by people that contradict each other, so I'll use the source material of D&C 132 to point out issues with polygamy. Section 132 is the only place in the scriptures that states plural marriage comes from the Lord; there are no other scriptures in the standard works that explicitly state that the Lord commanded righteous men to take another wife; although there have been times when polygamy has been sanctioned by God. Joseph was a student of the Bible and I believe he understood it better than almost anyone. He even did a massive translation of it, known as the JST, and he had the spirit of revelation, so it’s more likely that other men not as acquainted with the scriptures would have made the errors that are apparent in the very first verse and other verses in D&C 132:
1) There is no scriptural support for Isaac marrying more thad to one wife. 2) Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman while living in Egypt (Numbers 12:1) and after he fled Egypt he married Zipporah and no one else is mentioned in the scriptures. In another book, I read that the Ethiopian marriage was part of a political alliance between the two countries. What happened to the marriage after he fled is unknown. The Lord did not condemn Moses, and in fact when Aaron and Miriam ridiculed Moses for the marriage, the Lord declared Moses as “faithful in all mine house,” and “the anger of the Lord was kindled against them.” It is false when in 132:38 it mentions that Moses, along with David and Solomon “received many wives and concubines. 3) David was NOT justified in all his marriages. Some were permitted, and many of his marriages were done as part of political alliances. In D&C 132:39 it only mentions Uriah’s wife Bathsheba as the only wife where David committed sin. However, in JST 1 Kings 11:6 it states in reference to the many wives David and Solomon had and how it led to their downfall: “And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father, and went not fully after the Lord.” 4) Solomon was also NOT justified in all 700 wives and 300 concubines who some eventually “turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, and it became as the heart of David his father.” It also says that because Solomon did not keep God’s covenants and statutes, that God would rend the kingdom during the reign of Solomon’s son. (1Kings 11: 3-4, 9-12) 5) Again in verse 38 it also says that “many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time” received “many wives and concubines,” “…and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.” This is false statement that cannot be backed up with scriptures. I did a search to find all the polygamous marriages in the Old Testament, and besides Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, it only mentions five other men who had more than one living wife: (1) Esau - Genesis 26:34; 2) Gideon - Judges 8:30; (3) Elkanah the father of Samuel - 1 Samuel 1:2; (4) Rehoboam, Solomon’s son - 2 Chronicles 11:21; (5) King Abijah - 2 Chronicles 13:21. There were none in the New Testament, and the mention in any of the other standard works of multiple marriages are of men who were unrighteous and these polygamous practices were often associated with societal and spiritual decline. (King Noah and his wicked priests - Mosiah 11; Riplakish - Ether 10:5; Lamech, a descendant of Cain, Adah - Moses 5:44). As I have studied section 132, it is apparent that all of it was NOT a revelation from Joseph; however, I’m not discounting that some of it may have been a revelation from him. Having the document conveniently locked in Brigham's desk draw and not revealing it until 1852 would have given ample time to make changes or additions. Much of it does not match the other revelations of Joseph Smith, indicating that parts were added to it by others. For example, there are 12 verses that "damn, destroy, or curse" people and 8 of them invoke the name of God (vs. 4, 6, 14, 26, 27, 41, 46, 52, 54, 57, 63 & 64). In a writing analysis that was conducted, this is more consistent with Brigham's writing and speaking style. Lastly, if the principle of celestial marriage (aka plural marriage in the eternities) is essential to exaltation, why is there no mention of it in any other scriptures besides D&C 132? Why did the Savior not speak of it as a principle of exaltation in the New Testament or Book of Mormon while he was teaching the people in the Americas? And, even though Brigham made it a part of the temple endowment during his tenure, why is there nothing mentioned about it in the modern-day temple endowment?
God does not change. He commanded us not to lie. He said it was an abomination to Him, yet Young, Taylor and others were to "lie for the Lord"? (Like God would need someone to lie for Him? He's omnipotent etc.). God teaches over and over that man should have one wife and no concubines, yet for Brigham, He suddenly changes? He admonished the prophets who took multiple wives. Notice the scriptures NEVER say He GAVE them multiple wives. Read The Hebrew Bible also. Joseph was not a liar. He was monogamous. The church needs to tell the truth. Polygamy didn't build the church, it almost destroyed it.
I love Michelle Stone. She has helped me find peace with how I felt God viewed me as a woman for the majority of my life. I actually feel like Heavenly Father loves me now instead of feeling like an object. Thank you Michelle for the hours upon hours of research you have done.
Words are inadequate to describe the first time I read 132 as a seminary student. It was soul crushing. I had a natural love for Heavenly Father and Jesus, and a budding passion for their words in scripture. I tried to understand what I clearly see as verbal nonsense in 132. Ask an English teacher to read this! I found some false doctrines in it, but no one ever wants to talk about it. So 132 had great dissonance for me. It was Elder Bednars talks on the teacher is no better than the student, and President Nelson's admonishment to "hear Him" where I finally felt free to trust my heart, mind, and soul that polygamy is an abomination! I appreciate the work that both sides of the polygamy discussion have done. Now it is time for Brian Hales and other historians to get caught up on the topic. I am not all about changing the Church. But my family knows that I believe Joseph, I believe the Lord and the words he gave to Jacob--that polygamy is an abomination. What has happened to Jacobs talk condemning polygamy: it gets wrested, chopped in pieces, verses pulled out to support what D & C literally calls, the Doctrine of Multiple Wives and Concubines! Funny how no one wants to talk about who gets to be the concubines--a Heavenly caste system! My testimony of my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have grown by leaps and bounds. I have greater love for my husband. I am now able to fully trust my heart with God. That childhood love for the Lord has been restored! Thank you Michelle!
Abram called himself evil. After his wrestle with God he repents and receives a New Name. Abraham, as a new creature, never committed polygamy. This story follows the Pattern of Ascension through the three part space, ending in the reception of All the Father Has.
@@zissler1Because obviously God wants men to abandon their wives and children right!?! Sometimes we have to live with the consequences of our choices, even after repentance that is made public in the scriptures.
Ya know, I can’t say one way or the other. But I believe Joseph Smith to be a man of character, the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and Jesus is the Christ. I’m sure we’ll find out about all of the secrets during the millennium.
Thanks for the conversation. I appreciate your good questions... and your and Michelle's respectful manners. Please do some more. I appreciate Michelle's ability to articulate such substantive responses and her encyclopedic knowledge gained by her incomparable research. I would encourage everyone to honestly consider the findings and evidences she, Jeremy Hoop, Rob Fotheringham and others are faithfully bringing to light. A mountain of issues. Let's just find the truth... And love, honor and obey our merciful Father and his Son.
Whitney Horning also wrote to great books and the Prices as well. There is a lot of scholarship and how is it that historians are so disinterested in all the documents that have come to light, with the publishing of the Joseph Smith Papers? Why is the Church inviting people to write books? Much of this information had not been available. Now it is. What is the threat? The truth will prevail unless we censor and threaten people with excommunication if they discover documents that go counter to the Church Historians preconceived narrative...
Michelle, not Brian Hales, is the leading expert of the polygamy evidence. She has the most honest approach to interpreting the historical evidence. I am glad that Don Bradley now has also changed his mind to recognise Jacob 2:30 is NOT a polygamy loop hole, and hopefully those responsible for the church seminary et al publications stop including this scripture when discussion “at times god has commanded his people to practice polygamy”. Use D&C 132, but please don’t wrest the BOM.
Greg's argument that a polygamous marriage is a marriage between one man and one woman was completely unintelligible. I've never heard anyone make that claim. The very prefix of polygamy literally means more than one.
@@CwicShow Polygamy was also illegal in the city of Nauvoo and State of Illinois. Joseph prosecuted everyone and anyone found guilty of polygamy. We lost the Temple Lot Case. No credible witnesses. No proof. The affidavits were thrown out and laughable by the judge. why do we never hear about that? If Eve was deceived, and you admit the mother of all living was, don't you think Brigham could have been?
As Jacob says, they understand not the scriptures (proclamation) and seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms (or excuse/justify others). Mind blowing! I also laughed out loud.
She did not want her children to be groomed into polygamy. I don't either. All my children and grandchildren know that polygamy is an abomination. Not everyone bought into the false doctrines that lead to slavery in Utah. I can hold my own conviction to believe the Lord, that polygamy is an abomination.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c I’m not sure about that. Joseph F Smith practiced plural marriage, and Hyrum stated that Mary Fielding sat in as proxy for his first wife’s (Jerusha) sealing to him.
@@oshemer5066 Not sure I get what you are saying. Emma did not want her children to become polygamists and that is what Brigham was practicing before they left Nauvoo. This was a big rift as well as other things. Yes, Hyrum was sealed to one woman for eternity, his first wife after her death. Mary went west with the Saints where she was left to live in horrible poverty. Mary died when Joseph F. Smith was young. Watch Michelles episode on this.
So like David ended up doing as well... just what was the evil(s) Solomon was doing?? In David's case, we already know the sin wasn't having many wives. It was what he was doing with and to those wives AND... lusting other men's wives. Murder Too. So again... what whoredoms were they doing?? How about sleeping with more than one wife at a time, would that be a whoredom and defilement of chastity? How about they were also indulging and allowing or forcing women to sleep with each other, would that be a whoredom?? What about not treating all wives equally and breaking their hearts, would that be a abomination in the eyes of God?? You have just learned the difference between righteous plural marriage and not.
Having interacted with her online, I get a bad feeling from her. I’m surprised to learn just how many members were spurred to research church doctrine and history at the beginning of the pandemic like I was. I knew plural marriage was a thorny issue and have since seen friends and family either leave the church or stay in as activists. Just because you’ve researched a topic and even claim to have first believed in plural marriage as Michelle does, it doesn’t mean you’ve reached the right conclusions. Scrutinize her research methodology. Evaluate her analysis. If it leads her and others to reject the prophets, it’s the wrong conclusion.
The spirit leaves when she opens her mouth. It happens every time I start watching her videos. I have all the answers I need. My faith is in God, not Michelle Stone.
Rejecting the prophets, huh? When Hyrum Smith, who had been appointed Prophet, Seer, and Revelator by the time, declared in general conference, only around 3 months before his death, with "the power of God," that "it is lawful for a man to marry a wife, but it is unlawful to have more, and God has not commanded any of you to have more," was he wrong, or right?
@@rowleskids hmm, let’s ask his plural wives Mary and Mercy Fielding, Catherine Phillips, Louisa Sanger, and Lydia Granger. The answer is that John C. Bennett was committing adultery in the name of plural marriage which Joseph and Hyrum rightfully disavowed. They accepted and practiced authorized plural marriage.
To rephrase @cwicshow pinned comment: Oh no, our church is in trouble. The book of Mormon teachings are seeping into our church. The meaning of being faithful to your wife will change forever!
I am 26 minutes into this podcast and two things stand out like a sore thumb: first, Ms. Stone forces many, many ambiguous sources and evidences to support her main proposition: Joseph Smith, good (and never bought in to the practice of polygamy) and other leaders bad. If the issue is whether polygamy is a true, doctrinally based practice, why the need to save Joseph from the rest of the bad actors except out of a naïve need to protect her view of the world and testimony. Joseph Smith just as easily could be lumped in with the rest of the bad actors and polygamy could still be, a false principle. To me, this suggests that Ms. Stone is not intellectually honest and is subconsciously motivated by a narrative she is trying to make fit. The second thing I noticed is that Ms. Stone very knowingly and intentionally stops short of criticizing modern day prophets such as President Nelson and President Oaks. The logical extension of what she preaches condemns these brethren, but she seeks to protect her church membership. If she were seeking truth earnestly, she would follow it wherever it leads. To “cancel“ 4-5 early prophets and presidents of the church (but not Joseph Smith), but shy away from canceling modern prophets again shows a certain naïveté. Selective cancellation of prophets will not preserve her membership.
Loved your comment! Michelle hesitates to call the early Church leaders "liars" but has no problem referring to them as "lustful and power-hungry". She accuses them of the heinous abomination of committing whoredoms but protects them from being viewed as "liars"??? - even though she clearly says they all lied about Joseph Smith's polygamy and D&C 132! Pretty funny stuff. For some reason she just can't bring herself to throw the prophets all under the bus completely! Her position is ridiculous.
We're taught that eternal marriage is prerequisite to having the power of creation in the eternities. We're also taught we are to be one flesh with our spouse, and no other. To me, one flesh means achieving complete unity of heart, mind, body and soul as our heavenly parents have done. I believe such unity is necessary to unlock the power of creation in eternal marriage. We learn in Genesis that the very image of God is both the male and the female together. Neither the male nor the female can create without the other, and without creation, there is no God. To me, that means God is a celestial couple who have achieved complete unity to have the power of creation. I believe it's impossible to achieve the necessary unity with more than one spouse. Whether God makes it possible for some, I don't know, but I doubt it. So far as we know, we only have one Heavenly Mother.
What does that even mean any way, to be one? One in purpose? One in mind? One in harmony? All of those are possible with complete harmony and love with one or three. Undenyably possible with exalted beings.
@@avoice423 One glance at the journals of polygamous wives shows there was anything but unity in their marriages. These women were largely treated very poorly, more like property than loving companions. Would it be possible for exalted beings to have such unity with more than one? Perhaps. For those who are not exalted beings, probably not so much. Based on the lived experience of those who lived it, I'd say definitely not. Achieving such unity is required to become exalted in the first place. So you have a chicken or the egg problem. It's impossible to achieve the capacity for perfect unity without already being in perfect unity to begin with. And of course, there's the fact that outside of section 132, scriptural support for polygamy falls apart very quickly.
I can't remember how i know her but it may be through homeschool. Lived almost half my life in Lehi so if she's from that area i could've met her then. I did have a polygamist man take me to lunch to meet his wife and three kids and i really was so naive i had no idea what was going on until he asked me if i would join his family. He said his kids and wife had agreed to it already. His wife just looked at me. She seemed so sad and just.... Accepting? Like she was just accepting it as a real thing she'd make herself learn to live with or something. I thought for sure she'd get upset at her husband or me or that she'd laugh off the "joke", but when i realized they were so serious and that the three little kids looked so hopeful and excited about me being in their family i froze. I told him i didn't know because, well, i froze in complete shock. He apologized and we all left our separate ways. Later i overheard him talking about me and my body with his co-worker and was shocked and flat out disgusted. My old boyfriend was working there on a different project and yelled at him and threatened him to never talk like that about me again. He got mad at me for not standing up for myself. He was right. I should have. But like i said i was just in shock and dumbfounded and really embarrassed. I was his boss's boss, too, so it was serious.
Thanks for having Michelle on. There is truth in her words. The Lord Himself is the best source. D&C 84:54-58.. the church has been and remains under condemnation for not following the precepts of the BoM….Polygamy is clearly denounced in the BoM. 3 Nephi 16:10 The Lord Himself stated that the Gentiles (the only group to claim the fullness in the latter days is the LDS) would depart. He stated not if but WHEN. D&C 124: 48,50 The Lord has cursed the church to the 4th generation for its abominations. We are now in that 4th generation and the Lord is lifting the curse and people are waking up to their awful situation. The waking up process is hard and many are leaving the church. For those who discount this message. The BoM also warns against those who state all is well in Zion
Since when do we think we are immune to pride cycles? Since when would we think we never need correction? It does not make the Church not Christs! Perhaps it is even evidence we are Christs! That He loves us enough to correct us. It was the Lords inspired constitution that ended slavery and polygamy. Thank the Lord--lets just clean up the messy remainders.....
Joseph F. Smith - “It is a righteous principle not an unrighteous one. It is a pure and holy principle; and, therefore, persons, either male or female, who have not the desire in their hearts to become pure and righteous, have no business to practice it, for it cannot be practiced acceptably before God on any other principle than that of purity and righteousness, therefore no wicked unjust or impure person can enter into the law of celestial or plural marriage without incurring the displeasure of the Almighty and his own condemnation before the Lord, unless he speedily repent of all his impure motives and designs. A man that is not honest in his heart, who does not desire to be just and impartial, even as God is just and impartial, has no business in plural marriage; and before he enters into the practice of that principle he needs to repent, to learn wisdom, to get the Spirit of God, to get understanding in relation to the purpose God has in view in regard to this principle; that he may go into the practice of it understandingly, that his heart and mind may be set upon practicing it in righteousness. Sometimes it is the fault of the man, sometimes of the woman, and oftener of both, but never the fault of the principle. The principle is correct, great, ennobling and calculated to bring joy, satisfaction and peace, if we would but observe and practice it as we should. But in order to do this we must get wisdom and understanding. Joseph F. Smith (Plural Marriage-For the Righteous Only-Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting)
Good interview. D&C 132 "I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines..." Do we seriously believe the Lord ever justifies concubines (sex slaves)? Think about that single issue and then ask yourself: seriously, the Lord says it is JUSTIFIED to have sex slaves? Great job Michelle. I invite all true seekers after more truth and light to watch the videos of Michelle, Gwendlyn, Rob, Jeremy, and Whitney. Thank you, Greg, for hosting this wonderful woman.
There is no doubt that, like portions of the Bible, (namely the Deuteronomists) D&C 132 was tampered with. And this is the perfect example. This is also why scribes (historians) are listed as hypocrites by Jesus. Our own historians have engaged in malpractice, whether intentionally or ignorantly. In section 25 Emma is an "elect lady", but by section 132, she is threatened with destruction seven times. Does that make sense?
@@avoice423 NOT SO. But even if it was so, then 132 teaches of a caste system for women in Heaven. 132 is filled with false teachings. Time to actually read it and apply Alma 32 As Greg said, he finds it DIStasteful, and not "SWEET" and DELICIOUS"
Webster defines a concubine: a woman with whom a man cohabits without being married: such as one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife or mistress. Oxford dictionary: ... (in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives. A mistress. King's College: a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress. (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank. Even if we disregard the historical definition of a concubine--which would be historical malpractice--we would have to define what is a "wife of lower status." Obviously, a concubine is not a wife of higher status. How many lower status categories could there be? Do we seriously think our Savior would ever establish a system in His Plan of Salvation for hundreds of thousands of His daughters to be consigned to be a "wife" of, 2nd, 3rd, 4th class as a member of a concubine? No, sex slave quite aptly describes a woman who is in a concubine. Eventually the LDS church leaders will disavow Brigham's polygamy doctrine, just as they have done with Adam-God, blood atonement, and the blacks holding the priesthood.
1HR 2MIN C'mon Greg. The context of D&C101 circa 1835, was CLEARLY addressing the issue of Polygamy and fornication that the church was being charged with. It's laughable, quite frankly, that you think this passage still allows for polygamy.
@@cameronhoward99 It was in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, and remained there until it was taken out in 1878, and section 132 was added - without a vote from the church. Also, the "Doctrine" was what is known now as the Lectures on Faith, which was taken out in about 1921, and we are only left with the "Covenants" with are now known in totality as D&C.
@@cameronhoward99 Well that is because the Church never told all us of these generations that the 1835 version up until 1876 had a renumbered section 101, later 109 revelation that condemned the Church for the CRIME of polygamy. Why is that. and the Church also never told us, but you can read about it in the 1852 Deseret News that reports on the Church conference that was held in late August that year--Brigham Young for the first time presented section 132 8 years after Josephs death. Why was that not taught in my seminary or BYU D&C class? I would totally have investigated that!
Said the Zoramites to Alma. Do you believe that John Taylor was wrong when he received a revelation teaching that the church can never abandon polygamy?
It’s simple. EITHER the modern leaders of the church and all past proponents of Joseph’s polygamy were lying…or Joseph, Hyrum and Emma were. By supporting the current presidency, you are absolutely saying that Joseph was a liar. There is no room at all for middle ground on this.
Greg, I know you are catching heat for having Michelle on. I personally think it was a good choice and these are conversations that we need to have. As JSJr said (in quoting another), by proving contraries,' truth is made manifest,'. If JSJr did practice and teach polygamy, the truth is on your side and there is no need to fear the naysayers. If it isn't of God and JSJr never taught or practiced it, that will eventually be made known. Truth will prevail. I have come to learn for myself that polygamy is not a godly principle and I find a lot of Michelle's early church research to be quite insightful. I don't agree with her on many things but there are many things I do agree with her on. There is ample evidence on both sides of the argument to support your beliefs (pro- or anti-polygamy) - it really comes down to how much you dig into the original sources, read their journals and the actual words of JSJr rather than what others said he said.
1 man, 1 woman. Its very simple. Just ask her: in these polygamous sealings how many people went to the altar? 2. 1 man and 1 woman. You have a lot of patience Greg. She is so difficult to listen to let alone try to talk to. Shes all over the place man.
Joseph Smith repeatedly denied he was practicing polygamy. Therefore, if Joseph was a polygamist then he was also a liar. If Joseph was a liar then we can’t trust his testimony or anything that he revealed including the Book of Mormon. I believe Joseph was telling the truth.
Sure, but Abraham lied about Sarah in a difficult circumstance, Isaac lied about Rebekah in a difficult circumstance, even Jesus says to "agree with your enemy" when necessary. It's not a good argument. There are much better arguments on your side than that.
The law given at the beginning "a man should leave his parents [and marry] and become one flesh" you can't become "one flesh" if there is a third party. What of the 1st wife? There is no bonding and becoming one unified front between a man and 2 women, it creates a branch from the union. A branch that universally creates strife. Look at the example of Abraham: the maidservant became proud of her place over Sarah (having had a child over her). Sarah, being envious and disrespected, was reduced to punishment of the handmaid, and their children's line had strife. This all has become a mess of contention and contention is NOT of God.
Why do you disbelieve Joseph Smith's own testimony on the subject? Whose testimony do you hold in higher authority than the Prophet of the Last Dispensation and why?
Michelle is so very well versed! Everything she says makes perfect sense. The explainations and stories I've heard over the years made no sense at all. Now, I believe I understand and am eternally grateful.❤
You are correct. Church essays and BYU proffessors nearly destroyed my faith, but I survived, thanks to personal revelation and the gift of the Holy Ghost!
@@stefanylclark7419 AMen. I started this journey to bolster my daughter’s faith. There is no polygamy loophole in Jacob 2. And the origination of 132 is very sketchy.
People like her is why President Nelson said “One of our greatest challenges today is distinguishing between the truths of God and the counterfeits of Satan. That is why the Lord warned us to “pray always, … that [we] may conquer Satan, and … escape the hands of the servants of Satan that do uphold his work.” The Power of Spiritual Momentum
So then you side with the liars that wrote the Nauvoo Expositor and killed Joseph Smith. Or do you believe Joseph was honest. “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one” JS
When Hyrum Smith, who had been appointed Prophet, Seer, and Revelator by the time, declared in general conference, only around 3 months before his death, with "the power of God," that "it is lawful for a man to marry a wife, but it is unlawful to have more, and God has not commanded any of you to have more," was he wrong, or right?
I do not feel the spirit coming from this woman. The comment section on her videos is full angry people.. Her hyper critical content particularly Regarding Brigham Young leads people out of the church. I’ve seen her wright that that is not her intention so it’s not her responsibility because She is just telling the “truth”
Call this spiritual hit and run. All the prog mo’s do it. Totally agree with you. I’ll knock you off your faith by saying some random stuff and if your life falls apart oooops, sorry not my responsibility
You are an exception, Cheryl. By far, the greatest animosity and rancor stems from those who oppose Sister Stone's clear evidence that Joseph Smith never preached or practiced polygamy. And many, many more members' testimonies are shaken and challenged by calling the Lord's founding prophet a repeated liar, adulterer, and pursuer of teenage brides behind his wife's back than by believing Joseph spoke the truth when he insisted that he always shunned and condemned polygamy. When I hear comments like yours that are so dead-set against the idea that the Lord's founding prophet of the Restoration, Joseph Smith, always spoke the simple truth about his stance against Polygamy, I want to ask them these questions (and I am genuinely interested in your responses): * How do feel about the indisputable fact that Joseph consistently denied ever preaching or practicing polygamy and even excommunicated those who did so? * Do you believe the same person with the courage to walk in and out of the Sacred Grove and have regular, annual meetings with Moroni and others on the Hill Cumorah, and call the entire world to repent and follow their Savior through the teachings and authority that now resided in him alone--do you really think that same person would tremble at the thought of sharing any other truth the Lord revealed to him, but opt instead to cower and lie? * Do you believe the Lord would give an important commandment and immediately tell those he commanded to always hide and lie about that commandment--even to his own wife? * When you read DC 132, do you feel the Spirit of the Lord in the same way as when you read the Book of Mormon? Do you also feel you are eating from the sweet and light-filled fruit of the Tree of Life when you read DC 132? * Do you ever wonder why, years after Joseph's death, the section that celebrated his statement on the Lord's law of marriage (monogamy) was removed and replaced by DC 132? * Are you concerned when DC 132 blatantly contradicts the Book of Mormon? * Do you really think Joseph would ever speak of his dear wife, Emma, as quoted in DC 132? (Compare those words with Joseph's tender expressions of love in his private letters to her.) * What do you think of the fact that the greatest weapons used against our church by its enemies are the arguments of those who insist Joseph Smith was a secret pursuer of teenage brides? I prefer to believe that Joseph Smith spoke the truth, loved and honored, and cherished his dear wife, Emma, and had nothing to do with the dark and rancor-filled DC 132. I'm sorry if these words seem either angry or harsh to you. But I don't understand why they would. I'm sorry if such statements seem to you opposed to the Lord's Spirit? Can you see why many find the opposite of these statements much more disturbing? Thanks for the dialogue, Cheryl.
@@jonterry9843 The Scriptures are quite clear about how Joseph could not have been a "philanderer" while practicing plural marriage, which he did. D&C 132:61-62 reads, "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood-if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified." What you define as animosity and rancor is actually righteous indignation that you would lie about both Joseph and Brigham when the evidence is so clear that you're wrong. If you find D&C 132 to be dark and rancor-filled, that's your own perception and personal issues speaking. To borrow a phrase from the scriptures, "see thou to that." Having studied the doctrine of Celestial Marriage for years myself, I have received a sure and true testimony of it. I have also received a sure and true testimony that it is not the practice of the Church today. This doctrine is exalting and makes Kings of men, when practiced when and as commanded by God. D&C 132 doesn't contradict Jacob in the BoM in any regard, and to claim so is a lie. Those familiar with the presence of the Spirit of God see where the darkness in this debate really is.
Why do people think “denying” Joseph’s polygamy is somehow apostate? But also think accepting it is not calling Joseph a liar (as he denied it)? Wouldn’t you be calling Joseph a liar? Or could there be more nuance to this? Both sides are too quick to take a hard stance when both arguments are based on human testimony. And whichever side you fall on, you can still accept the authority of prophets within the stewardship they have received from Christ. We should be contending against the church of the devil, not among each other.
I'll tell you exactly why. Its not like any of the history revisionists, while claiming Joseph didn't practice it, afford Brigham the prophetic mantle to institute the practice on his own. This just shows that's its really about the issue itself for them, not so much what they think Joseph did or did not do. And with that denial comes the claim that Brigham and other prophets not only lied about the origin of plural marriage, but also taught and practiced adultery for decades. This inevitably leads to two conclusion for the revisionists. Either the priesthood keys somehow remained with Church despite this (a completely inconsistent and untenable position). Or the Church went into apostasy after Joseph's death (which does lead to apostasy). We have a bunch of spiritually immature members, who can't emotionally handle the issue of plural marriage, and try to find away around it while still feigning loyalty to Joseph and the Restoration. Inevitably they end up cutting the ground out from their own feet.
@@4rcgoodwin if you are lawfully married to multiple women by God then it isn’t adultery. If someone where to have only one of his wives in the room while the other six where elsewhere then he would only find one in that room.
@@jaredshipp9207 Appreciate the response. Be careful not to paint everyone who is interested in this question with the same broad brush. I would totally afford BY the prophetic mantle to institute polygamy on his own, but that’s not what he claimed to do. And yes, if JS never practiced polygamy, then BY lied. But if JS did practice polygamy, then HE lied about it. So either way, members have to accept that prophets are human and can lie AND still be prophets. That was the point of my questions. BY believed, taught, and practiced many things that were wrong (e.g., blood atonement, Adam-god, polygamy (maybe?)). But I believe that he had precisely the kind of personality/constitution that Christ needed to get the saints across the plains. That prophetic mantle didn’t make him flawless by any means. So COULD Christ have allowed BY to institute polygamy without authorization, knowing that He (Christ) could make all necessary corrections later? It’s absolutely possible and not unprecedented at all. But I’m also open to the idea that Joseph DID practice polygamy AND lied about it AND was still a prophet, flawed as he was (who isn’t?). I’m interested in the subject because I want to know the truth, whatever it is. But whatever it is, it doesn’t affect my testimony of Christ. Based on what I know of both of these great prophets, I tend to lean towards believing Joseph when he said he didn’t practice polygamy, but it’s not a hard stance. I think both sides offer good evidence. But most importantly, I applaud anyone who honestly pursues truth. If their pursuit leads them away from the church, I would encourage them to keep seeking truth, so the truth will lead them back to the church.
The beliefs and attitudes of the RLDS/Community of Christ church are seeping into Latter-day circles. We can see this in three major areas: polygamy denial, a fallen Brigham Young, and Temples are not necessary. In this interview, you can see from the more tense portions that this would have devolved into a barking episode if I had argued a side. I wanted to let Michelle talk and clarify her position. She did that on some issues but was vague on others. I believe Michelle brings up some valid points of discussion, but ultimately, the evidence that the Lord has sanctioned polygamy from time to time, including with Joseph Smith, is overwhelming. She seems to pick and choose what to believe and what to disregard based on her framework of polygamy denial. Several stretches are made with Abraham, David, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young. Her "spirit of deception" argument was disturbing. A square peg does not fit into a round hole.
I do really appreciate Michelle coming on the show and studying things out, though I disagree with her conclusions.
For those of you supporting Michelle and accusing me of deleting comments, there are three things that happen:
1) Spamming-Some of you have resorted to spamming in response to comments. I found one example where there were over 28 of the same post. TH-cam automatically blocks spamming, thank goodness.
2) As you will see in my community guidelines, links are not allowed. There is a good reason for this based on the topics we tackle here. Several posts with links from Brian Hales and Don Bradley also didn't make it through.
3) This is for you of the despicable fringe. Several posts are held by TH-cam due to vitriolic language and profanity. This was targeted at President Nelson, the church, and commenters with a couple to me. This is not Reddit! I create an open forum for thought but not for toxic content. And lastly, if you are going to preach against the church or demean President Nelson, it won't get through. That is my rule.
Greg, you have admitted yourself that you have not studied this issue out. How can you disagree with her conclusions if you haven’t put in the time and effort to try and fully understand? Even if people disagree with her final conclusion on Joseph, she has done a great job of making a historical and scriptural case against polygamy, and has shown that there are many holes in the church’s polygamy narrative.
@@Commenter2121my problem comes from the denial of the temple and Brigham Young. From study, prayer and experience, I know the Temple is of God and has been from the time of Adam and Eve. Any belief that takes away from that doesn’t fit.
@@Commenter2121 That's why I had her on the show. But I am a well-versed studied of the scriptures. It's easy for me to say that Abraham didn't commit adultery. Imagine, using the term "Abrahamic Covenant" for an adulterer. Abraham was a prophet seer and revelatory already before and sought earnestly for righteousness before he ever met Hagar. It's easy for me to believe that Brigham Young was a prophet and not a murderer or at the minimum, a lustful man "on the prowl" and initiated polygamy through lies and a "spirit of deception." It's easy for me to see why the story of David and Bathsheba represents going beyond what the Lord has sanctioned.
@@creativegenecircle That is absolutely not true, you clearly have not tried to understand her motivations.
@@WyoCutlass71 This comment shows that you aren’t aware of her work either. Michelle has constantly encouraged people to stay in the church and explained why she stays herself. She’s also acknowledged Brighams role in the church and has shared some deeply personal spiritual experiences she’s had at the temple. She is not anti Brigham or anti temple. She’s just not afraid to call out bad behavior when she sees it, and unfortunately Brigham said and did some very troubling things. Would you condemn Hugh B Brown for standing up against church leaders on the priesthood ban? Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Benson made some horrific statements about our black brothers and sisters, luckily others had the courage to push back.
Between this, gay marriage, gender confusion, malevolent compassion, etc, it's no wonder president Nelson prophesied that “In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.”
It's interesting to me how quickly the prophetic nature of that statement is being revealed. But he also did say to not delay, that time is running out.
So true! I see this happening too. Satans deceptions are so creative and calculating. I’m certain we will see more of them. I’ve got a warry eye out for AI
And he lied about the gene therapy being safe and effective. 🤷♀️
@@psmith535 Rock in a hat WAS NEVER a thing, but somehow dodo birds just love it. Joseph had the real deal urim and thumim, came with the plates. Then president dodo shows us the hat... brilliant. And recommends the jab with his BLACK mask on, More brilliance.
President Nelson is arguably the worst president the church has ever had. I’m looking forward to a change very soon.
He misleads about what the veil is, and whose face we seek behind the veil. If President Nelson gets important things like that are wrong, then what?
I'm in the camp that believes Joseph was not a polygamist.
I feel like you can't PROVE Joseph was or was not practicing polygamy. But, I do think the bulk of the evidence, combined with reason and logic, support that he was not.
In no particular order.
1. There are no known children from any women other than Emma.
2. Joseph's verifiable, contemporary statements opposed polygamy. Condemned polygamy.
3. The Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:24) clearly condemns what was done by David and Solomon having many wives as an abomination. D&C 132:38-39 is in direct conflict with what is said in the Book of Mormon stating that David and Solomon were given their multiple wives by God.
4. The original D&C 101 specifically addressed the issue, the accusation, of polygamy being leveled at the Church. That section says one man and one woman only while either are living. No additional wives or husbands while married to another.
5. Brigham and Emma were at odds. Emma maintained that Joseph never had any other woman. Brigham, in the 36th Semi-Annual Conference of the Church, Oct 1866, said, among other things, that, "Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth". He continued, accusing her of attempting to murder Joseph twice by poisoning him. Does this make sense? Does this seem consistent with the love letters and affection that was known to have existed between them? Or, does it make more sense that Emma knew Brigham better than any of us today know Brigham and that she knew he was up to no good. Brigham had to discredit Emma in front of his followers without discrediting Joseph.
6. What my heart tells me. I have done a lot of praying and soul searching on this. I might be wrong in my conclusions, but I feel in my heart and in my mind, based on the available information and my prayers, that Polygamy is not, and was not, from God.
@@dougknighton5348 in the case of Eliza Snow, who was a plural wife to Joseph, she was unable to have children.
@BrianTerrill cool story bro. Now go through through list of over 30 women and explain why they produced zero children with Joseph
@@BrianTerrill this is a weak response. For decades the smoking gun that “proved” JS polygamy was the claims of Sylvia sessions and Josephine Lyon. We know know via DNA Joseph was not the father. Huh.
@@KimballCodygreat point plus that darn High Council meeting in 1843 that has the attendees noting in their journals exact lines we read in section 132. Michelle is just not being honest with all the facts. She had an agenda and gets her reward nevertheless.
@@daleclark7127 Citation, please?
I love how the Virgin birth, the command for Abraham to sacrifice his son doesn't phase the average believer. But stuff like this becomes a stumbling block, why, because the impacts what the listener wants for themselves. If we listen to total selflessness, it would not impact us. We would trust that this and many other things that we would have a hard time understanding would work out with a loving God. I find it baffling that many people are not outraged with the idea that in other churches there is a belief, that people who lived and died without knowing the Savior just automatically go to hell. That should outrage people but often doesn't. But will get outraged at this. Human genius never ceases to amaze.
If your neighbor holding a position that conveys the right to speak to you for God we’re to tell you that you should kill your spouse would you at least need to think about it?
Thank you. Good observations. Thank you again.
@@Mike-rt2vp thanks Mike well said
@@Kait272 I think you’re missing the point being made. The fact that he was commanded in the first place and got very near to actually following through _even though he was loath to do so_ should make you uncomfortable. If God told you to sacrifice your miracle child, you’d be pretty upset, too.
The Virgin birth isn't a good example to support your argument. It doesn't violate the laws of God that are specifically stated in scripture like polygamy does. Yes, there are examples of polygamy (e.g. Abraham) but if you carefully read the account of Abraham it was not something God commanded him to do. It was an idea that his wife came up with and she regretted it quite quickly and it brought a lot of discord and unrighteous in the family.
Your example of Abraham being commanded to offer up Isaac is probably a better example along the lines of polygamy. However, if you think about this example, it also doesn't fit. This was a test and it ultimately pointed Abraham's heart to God the Father and the sacrifice that He would make of His Only Begotten. However, Abraham was not permitted to carry it out but we are to believe that polygamy is similar to this example even though polygamy was permitted to be carried out?
Michelle seems like a thoughtful, kind person. My heart goes out to her for what she experienced in 2020 and 2021.
I cannot even begin to imagine... Such a hard story.
It's clear to see that Satan is using this topic to divide the saints and he's being successful.
I know, it is astonishing that so many good men and women support "abominations" and "whoredoms" ("*" thus said the Lord)
@@Kait272 unfortunately, you are one the deceived. Your biased and twisted comments are partially responsible for helping Michelle Stone deceive and divide the saints. You’re gonna be in for a rude awakening if you keep promoting and supporting everything Michelle does and says.
@@Kait272🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
@@christinebuck310 OR…there is a return to the core gospel underway…a miraculous spiritual renaissance…sweeping aside false doctrines.
And she’s leading the charge
It doesn't matter what they did in the past, The Book of Mormon is for our day and God has explicitly given the command to have one wife and concubines ye shall have none.
And God via Jacob, "Thus saith the Lord" has addressed the ancient practices of old,
"26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.". Jacob 2:26. So any of the old people if their gross criminal practices of many wives are not the product of the great and abominable church of the devil getting hold of the record before spreading it throughout the nations is a moot point, God doesn't want it happening!
@Wh3nth3wick3drul3 the Great and Abominable church was created after the time of Christ if we actually want to follow the proper text of the Book of Mormon. 1 Nephi 13:4 shows it was created by the Gentiles. Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon were not Gentiles.
But even though you made an emotional pitch that distorted scripture, you got 18 likes
Except the Lord specified to Jacob about the Nephites. "...THIS people."
Super glad you allowed Michelle to give her perspective! Even if you disagree with her is important to hear both sides.
If we can believe Joseph lied to protect the Church, why can't we believe that Brigham did the same? He made earlier statements that he introduced polygamy, not Joseph. Later, due to the persecutions over polygamy they needed to frame it as a Joseph doctrine because the Democrats told them it would make a stronger constitutional case. They lied later on to save the Church.
Same argument. Same logic. It doesn't have to hurt belief in the modern Church.
@@PeterBrownscouts Well, yeah. The VAST majority of the “proof” that he was a polygamist just “happened” to show up just in time for the temple plot case, conveniently enough.
Most apologists don’t have any idea what that is or why it matters.
Well…it represents a motive for deception and mainstreaming polygamy by slandering Joseph, doesn’t it?
AMEN! We already have cleansed the Adam God doctrine Brigham put in the temple; And we already are cleansing the Church of the slavery and the Priesthood ban. We have already removed many things from the temple ceremony counter to The Book of Mormon. And it did not end The Church. God suffers mistakes of the past as he pointed out in Jacob 2-3 when he condemned the people of old for their practice of what HE called, the "ABOMINATION" and WHOREDOM" of polygamy.
Thanks, Greg, for having Michelle on. It's always good to hear people speak for themselves rather than what other people say about them. We need to be humble and willing to listen to both sides and to sincerely study it out for ourselves without assuming we already have all the answers.
See my original post. Michelle does not invite discussion from both sides. It would be wonderful if Michelle invited someone who doesn't share her belief on this topic on her channel to have an open discussion. Instead, comments that do not support her narrative are being deleted.
@@ShelleyFrost-c4z she has had those who dispute her views on her channel.
@@McKenzieLewis-t5h Please post the title of the episode(s) where a guest who does not share Michelle's views was invited to join in an open discussion.
Michelle has had on her channel MANY that don’t believe the same has she does. Brian Hales, Todd Compton, Don Bradley, and several others.
@@ShelleyFrost-c4z In addition to the above mentioned, episodes 123 and 124 are with polygamist Benjamin Shaffer. She has been engaging with both sides as often as the polygamy side is willing to engage.
Edit: also just fyi about disappearing comments, TH-cam comments go poof somewhat regularly. I’ve noticed if I have a link or even copy and paste, those comments tend to disappear.
I just want to be sure I'm following the careful, balanced reasoning of those who oppose and condemn Sister Stone when she simply says she believes Joseph Smith when he ALWAYS proclaimed he condemned polygamy and never EVER practiced it.
See if I've got this straight, will you Brothers Brian, Jacob, David, et al . . .?
* THE LORD GAVE Joseph Smith a direct and essential commandment for human salvation (marry your babysitters ...) and then ALSO TOLD JOSEPH TO ....
* .... PRACTICE this anti-Book of Mormon commandment in order to have TONS of CHILDREN beyond your relationship with Emma, without ever producing ANY other children--except for those with your wife, Emma,
* .... MAKE SURE there is NOT A SINGLE contemporary JOURNAL ENTRY about ANY of those earth-shattering unions of the Lord's prophet with any of those dozens of polygamous wives--even though they each kept regular journal entries of all important events in their lives (though DECADES LATER, other leaders will round them up & "jog their memories" & have them EACH SIGN BOILERPLATE AFFIDAVITS, which the unbiased judge at the "Temple Lot Trial" will aggressively dismiss as obviously coerced FRAUDS in their failed attempt to provide the necessary legal evidence that you, Joseph Smith, ever practiced polygamy),
* .... ALWAYS DENY and LIE about the new commandment of institutional adultery (whoops, "polygamy"), & loudly condemn polygamy (whoops, "institutional adultery") at every opportunity,
* (because, you know, the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may then immediately deny that commandment & repeatedly lie about ever having received it),
* (and because, you know, the same guy who had the . . . courage to walk out of the Sacred Grove & announce to the entire world they must repent & follow every guideline given to him directly by God himself, word-for-word, to have any hope of salvation from hell; this same pretty tough guy by most standards, then quakes, trembles, & cowers at the prospect of some Missouri or Illinois hick walking past him & accusing him of keeping some commandment given to him directly by the Lord--with a Samurai angel making sure he is on the team)
* .... AND THEREFORE ALWAYS SNEAK AROUND in the dark--behind your wife's back--when adding to your teenage (& other men's wives) harem--as commanded by the Lord,
* .... AND EXCOMMUNICATE ANY OTHERS you know of who preach or practice that same polygamy,
* .... AND THEN PREACH and include additional verses & sections to the DC that clearly certify that the Lord's law of marriage is strictly MONOGAMOUS,
* .... AND THEN ARRANGE FOR FUTURE LEADERS (long after your death) to ERASE those monogamous verses & sections (DC 101, et al),
* .... AND HAVE THOSE FUTURE LEADERS REPLACE those clear monogamy verses & sections with the most ham-fisted & carnally-toned words of DC 132, which section suddenly CELEBRATES & COMMANDS having plenty of wives & concubines in order to satisfy any of those ole natural "desires" that may arise . . . which "desires" & accumulation of desire-quenching wives now become the top priority in a (male) saint's life)
* .... AND HAVE THEM INCLUDE blatantly FALSE DOCTRINES throughout that newly-forged (I mean placed ... or ... added ... or displayed ... or ...) DC section,
* .... AND have them ADDRESS your beloved WIFE and faithful matriarch of the Restoration, EMMA, in the threatening, debasing, HATEFUL TONES of that document,
* .... AND HAVE THOSE SAME LEADERS declare the earthly practice of polygamy "ESSENTIAL for exaltation" & "MORE IMPORTANT than BAPTISM" and declare Monogamy the enemy of morality & source of prostitution & disease,
* .... AND THEREBY, with all this ammo now available, PROVIDE anti-LDS GROUPS their GREATEST WEAPON (targeting potential investigators & vulnerable members) against reading the Book of Mormon, gaining a testimony of its truth, & joining the Lord's true and restored kingdom they could ever hope for in their deepest anti-LDS dreams . . .
Am I following you folks, or did I miss a few direct commandments of the Lord to his founding prophet of the Restoration ... ?
And you're mad at Sister Stone for doubting such "light-and-truth-filled" doctrines & related activities?
Hmmm, I think, instead of all that, I'll just go ahead & believe and sustain the Lord's founding prophet of the Restoration, the Prophet Joseph Smith, when he ALWAYS exclaimed that he condemned polygamy & was a loving and faithful husband to his dear wife, Emma, who also clearly denied that her husband ever polygamized.
Sure hope my decision doesn't get y'all too riled . . .
Give it a try, yourself, my friend, & see how the Lord feels about that decision. Okay?
Well... When you put it that way.... 😂 LOVE this comment!!!!
Amen!
It’s so ironic how many criticize her for speaking against the current prophet (which she is careful not to do) but yet have no problem to disparage the prophet of the final dispensation, Joseph Smith, (second only to Jesus), Hyrum and Emma to justify the abominable practice he openly condemned until his dying breath. I will err on the side of defending Joseph’s character, his loyalty to Emma and faithfulness to doing all of God’s commandments-which did not include any form of deception or betrayal. Michelle’s research and quest for truth are so well admired and needed and bring peace to a topic that does not align with who we know God and Joseph to be.
Oh my goodness you broke the thread! So well said!
Best comment ever ❤
The moment you start to take an objective look at the source documents, provennonce, and motivations, it becomes clear... Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma told the truth. Joseph always fought polygamy. Joseph was in alignment with Christs view on the matter as releaved in Jacob 2. But ultimately, the full knowledge comes by confirmation of the spirit as Moroni teaches. "By the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things."
Absolutely spot on. Before I had even heard of Michelle Stone the voice of the Spirit gently revealed to me that polygyny/polygamy could not possibly be the eternal order of heaven and therefore is not a celestial principle. I was not even studying polygamy at the time. But in being tutored by the Spirit of Truth about other eternal principles, this truth was manifested so very clearly. Michelle is just the cherry on top to confirm what I already know.
What about people who say the Holy Ghost confirmed to them plural marriage is an eternal principle? Do I believe them or you?
@oshemer5066 I would believe what the Holy Ghost tells you after sincerely studying it out and praying in humility, sincerely seeking to know the will of the Lord no matter the cost. This is the only way to know anything for certain. Best wishes ❤️
Read 132 out loud all the way through with your spouse. Ask each other how you feel. Dont rely on others, it will be very clear. Not from god. Not a hard test. @@oshemer5066
@@oshemer5066 Joseph said himself, “some revelations are from God, some are from man and some are from devils.” I had a dark spirit try to move in me to persuade me to believe that Adam was God the father. When the scriptures are so clear (minus 132), I don’t think you need the spirit to confirm anything. Hold to the rod, not the arm of flesh.
I am 65 years old, came of age in the 70’s. My dad was heavily engrossed in the controversy of blacks and the priesthood, on the side of getting rid of the ban and spoke openly against the practice. He told stories about how the subject nearly tore our ward apart. Lived in Granger, Utah. He, along with others that agree with him, was called deceived and an apostate, and treated very much the way Michelle is treated today. Most people were not willing to consider any other point of view. Then one day in June of 1978, he was no longer an apostate but there were still a lot of hard feelings and my family moved shortly after that. I wonder how many people commenting here has actually looked up any pieces of evidence that Michelle has offered and actually read for yourselves what Joseph wrote and said. So much is there for all to see in the Joseph Smith papers online for free. I agree that there are many things open for interpretation but Michelle’s evidence is as solid as any of the evidence provided on the other side of the issue. More compelling in my opinion having actually looked up and verified the evidence. But ya’ll can just wait for the prophet, apostles, and academics to do your thinking for you. But God works through the weak, simple and humble. And the phrase “every accredited historian agrees…” is just so pharisaical.
@permaprepper8130 Thank you for adding this context.
The Problem with you argument is that the women themselves bore a consistent testimony that they were married and sealed to Joseph Smith. These were women of honor and integrity who sacrificed so much to the lay the foundations of the Restoration. Our scriptural canon supports plural marriage. Section 132 is a revelation from God on the the authorized practice of plural marriage. In fact sexton 131 is the revelation is that have the most provenance.
Moses denied the Priesthood to the entire house of Israel except for the sons of Aaron. Jesus Christ denied baptism while he was alive to anyone who was not a Jew.
Those who entered into plural marriage do so by the authorization of Joseph Smith.
True. On top of that, the belief that Joseph did or did not practice polygamy is not going to save you one way or the other. It probably wont have much eternal significance at all in the end....
But some of her other views will have greater eternal significance for those who believe them. Like believing that the temple ordinance as we have it is not fully acceptable to God. Or her views on the priesthood. She seems to think that the fullness of the priesthood was received by Joseph and then taken away from the saints shortly after. She has also concluded that Brigham Young was psychopathic and insinuated that he might have been behind the destruction of the Nauvoo Temple. She often perpetuates the belief that the church leaders are lying to its members... and the list goes on.
I do not think that she is an evil human but she is certainly not a prophetess as many now call her. I would be extremely weary of her views. It is not necessarily apostate to believe Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy, but some of the other views she promotes are actually apostate. At some point she will be forced to chose between her teachings and the churches. And all those who follow her will have to make that same decision as well.
@@voicesoftherestorationyou obviously haven't done your research if you think the women bore a consistent testimony!
@@tennisgirl57couldn’t have said it better!
my biggest issue with this whole argument is she sayin that polygamy was never of God... what on earth is she talking about, have you read 1Samuel? Have you read how Hannah was blessed in spite of her being in a polygamist relationship? Jacob being a polygamist saw the face of God and was called Israel in spite of him having 4 wives, if Polygamy was so bad why then did God bless these polygamist? I have my issues with the practice but the truth is, without it, we would not have a religion period. Hell, Jesus himself would not have a religion to be born into, after all, was not Joseph the descendent of Juda?... A product of polygamy? This woman is off the rails, DnC 50 people, that's all I'm going to say, and there are a LOT of people being deceived now adays.
Not to mention Jesus confirms polygamists Abraham and Jacob will be in Heaven in Matthew 8:11
Why don’t you watch the dozens of videos and papers written about this topic before just throwing out a blanket statement on this statement/question? People have done and are doing their own research as they have decided to STOP just believing the narrative they have been told. 🙄
I think she's saying that God can work through you even if you are a sinner
@@tinariches6690 i have been watching her and following this story for some time time and she along with all the others that are saying that polygamy was not of God are full of it, thats why i speak with boldness. She along with the rest of polygamist deniers have zero authority first of all and are coming up with there own doctrines. We are LDS, not protestants, we believe in revelation not sola scriptura, and lastly, by there fruits ye shall know them. And what has been the fruits of denying polygamy? look no further the RLDS.
@@akpred sister that is a cop out, you dont get to see the face of God if you are in such terrible sin, hell you dont get to go to the temple like hannah did if you are living in sin. I understand that Grace is always there, but polygamy has played a vital role in the abrahamic traditions, and to say is not of God? That does not even make sense. This is why Joseph asked God the quesiton in the first place, thats why God told Joseph to prepare his heart. Jews oficially stoped practicing polygamy 1,000 AD... I mean its in the old testament, its part of the law of moses. I'm sorry but no shes wrong.
Are people so afraid admit that she could be right? What do you loose? I support and sustain our prophet and love this gospel but she very much could be right. Why do these men have to be perfect without any flaw when we have biblical evidence of flawed men called of God. Christ was and is the only perfect being to ever live. I have in my 40+ years tried to justify polygamy but over the past couple of years of personally looking into this THIS MAKES THE MOST SENCE! Yes it shatters some things but those things coupled with this information actually makes all of the pieces fit together. Do I think she is teaching through revelation? NO she is doing what any of us could do (and what God has asked us to do ) STUDY IT OUT! Then pray and ask. We are the main religion that teaches that and we are afraid to do it ourselves on this issue because we I think are afraid of what that means to us about Brigham Young and others. Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration. The church and its leaders are guides to lead us to Christ, but they are not the gospel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beautifully said. So many people reject this idea because they think they would have to reject the church. They do not! You can reject that polygamy came from Joseph and still be a faithful believing member!
I love that only people who agree with, or are the prophetess MS, have been deemed to have studied it out. Many others have studied it out and we’ve arrived at a different conclusion. The two sides disagree, but only one side is disparaging prophets old and new and it’s not the side that disavows MS as a prophetess.
@Ehcfe Nobody said the prophets are perfect. But it should be understood that they are also not going to be able to teach and practice institutionalized adultery (as the plural marriage-denying revisionists see it) and yet retain priesthood keys. So anyone who wants to go down this revisionist road, if they are consistent, can't claim "plural marriage was never commanded of God" and yet honestly claim they believe in the Church or understood how priesthood keys work. This is precisely why coming to this revisionist conclusion, which agrees with neither scripture or history, goes so often hand in hand with apostasy. It's only been apostate sects that have pushed this idea. Now those of like mind within the Church are pushing the same falsehoods. Before they're sifted out anyway.
@@jaredshipp9207 That is plainly incorrect. Even if Brigham committed adultery it does not invalidate his keys. That is not how priesthood keys work, currently or anciently.
As per the church handbook (38.2.6), unworthiness is not something that invalidates an ordinance, including ordinances that confer priesthood keys. If a stake president is excommunicated, for adultery, apostasy, or even murder, it does not invalidate any of the ordinations he performed. Otherwise, an investigation would have to be performed to discover when he became unworthy, and which ordinances and temple work would have to be redone. Alma the younger received his priesthood authority from king Noah (Msh 11:5), a man openly committing adultery and who killed Abinadi. If this does not invalidate Alma’s authority, you’ll be hard pressed to argue that Brigham’s keys would be invalidated for lying about polygamy’s origins. (Additionally, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff were ordained by Joseph, not Brigham, so it’s a null point anyways.)
Ultimately, we do not believe in a gospel of perfection. Jesus died so that we might not be condemned by the mistakes of our past. Just as God is eager to forgive us of our sins individually, even heinous ones, so too is He eager to forgive us institutionally.
“Ordinances of the priesthood are valid if they are performed by authorized priesthood bearers in the prescribed manner.… The ordinance does not become invalid if someone involved is unworthy at the time he participates. The sanctity of the ordinance is violated, but not the validity. ” Rex W Allred (Melchizedek General Priesthood Committee), Liahona, March 1989
@bbbarham6264 You're confusing this with the ability to lead the Church, maintain one's prophetic mantle, and receiving continual revelation while living and teaching gross sin. Sorry, it doesn't work like that and those history revisionists who claim it does are simply trying to have their cake and eat it too. They don't have the courage of their own convictions and will attack the Church and its leaders from the inside, leading others to leave, while they themselves don't. That's what Michelle Stone is doing.
When I went to the Lord in prayer many years ago, asking about polygamy, the answer I received was to read what Joseph said about it. Everything in the church materials said that he supported polygamy. It wasn’t until two years ago that I learned that Brigham Young supervised the revision of Joseph’s words, condemning polygamy, to say the exact opposite. Joseph condemned polygamy at every opportunity. I have collected 13 instances showcasing this, although a 14th just emerged last week when Joseph’s copy of the BOM was shown publicly (Thanks Jeremy Hoop) and he wrote in the margins of Jacob 2 “one wife”. Thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers Project, I can now find the original documents and read for myself what Joseph and Hyrum consistently taught. Honestly, it is a lot to process through and like Michelle, I don’t have all of the answers about the temple or the LDS Church leadership, but I am grateful for the answer to a heart felt prayer. I now stand with Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma. God help us all!!!
Thank you for your thoughts.
@@nadingos Well said!
The church shouldn’t…but obviously WILL…ignore this.
They dismiss these concerns as people “losing their faith” or being “lazy learners”…SO unbelievably condescending. They preach repentance, but as a church and as a literal matter of policy (according to Oaks), refuse to.
Just like the priesthood and temple ban were reversed I have hope that the church’s stance will change on this as well. The church has so many scholars, let alone the Joseph Smith Papers Project. I think it will inevitable, with scholarship, that the church’s historical stance on this will change.
@@brianbrown2237 Agree. Although it will definitely rattle the members and require a great deal of humility and repentance. Truth is worth it! Let’s submit to this cleansing process, because on the other side of it is greater light and truth.
It is so sad that you think the Church and its first seven prophets were evil for 100 years. But somehow, it can be "reformed" after 125 years. People say "the Lord will never allow the prophet to lead us astray"? How about Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph F Smith, ... Heber J Grant? They were all wrong, evil masterminds. But somehow, God, chose to straighten out His Church 20 prophets later? That is absurd.
Mosiah 11: 2 “he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And did cause his people to commit sin.” Did Brigham Young read this and believe it? NO.
Listen to the Prophet Jacob: “This people [if we liken the scriptures to ourselves in these last days, what did Brigham Young do?] begin to wax in iniquity [starting with a lie]; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son” (Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:23).
“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” (Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:24)!
Correct. If Eve was deceived by Satan, what makes us think Brigham was not?
@@kencard777 He is talking of King Noah. He was wicked, and the Lord did not give him his wives and concubines.
This is not comparable to Brigham Young
@@whazthatusay The Lord never gave anyone "many wives and concubines"
The sleep upon our people is deep, and we must arise and awaken. We are still under condemnation for not harkening to what we have received, even the covenant of the Book of Mormon.
You forgot Jocob 2:30
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will "command" my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things
As Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were and imho are still prophets and they were commanded of and by the Lord for His people to raise up seed unto Him, the Lord, we may now disagree with it but at the last day will not be able to deny that He, the Lord, did directly command His people via His prophets.
@@magapefarmshomestead6453 you have reading comprehension issues. But the good news is you can learn to overcome those issues. Briefly...
"these things" consistently only refers to one thing in this chapter, the whoredoms and abomination of, many wives and concubines. (aka, the things they "ought not to have done")
In verse 30, the preceding conditional clause - "for if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people"--- lacks adversative markers establishing its nature to be in contrariety to what was previously stated. "Otherwise" isn't introducing a clause counter to a conditional clause adversative to the prevenient text.
"Otherwise" is a conjunctive adverb, introducing an adverbial clause of condition, expressing what will happen if a certain condition is not met. It's in indicative mood.
It isn't acting as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "command my people" in the apodosis of the previous clause. It's not indicating that the command is in a different manner or in antithesis. If it were, the subordinate clause "they shall hearken unto these things" would then lack a proper coordinating conjunction linking it to the previous part of sentence. Even then, it still lacks an adversative marker; "for" isn't adversative and isn't interposing something in contrariety to the previous text.
I for one choose to believe Joseph. Everything I know about him reveals him as a moral, righteous, and honest man. If God commanded him to practice polygamy, he wouldn’t have denied it, let alone go slinking around behind his wife’s back for trysts with teenage girls and married women. He would have proclaimed it openly just like he did the First Vision. Remember what he said about that:
“I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.”
How do you reconcile his declaration on the first vision with the claims of his cowardice, lies, and of sneaking behind Emm’a back when it comes to practicing polygamy? It doesn’t fit with his character. He wasn’t a coward or a hypocrite, and the certainly wasn’t a liar. He tried to root out polygamy wherever he found it in the church, even excommunicating those who practiced it. It would make him a hypocrite as well as a liar to do this if he was practicing it privately.
Michelle, has done considerable research on this topic of polygamy. She goes to the original source documents and has a solid understanding of this period of church history. I am saddened and dismayed at the hateful comments that are pointed at her. In my opinion it doesn’t show LDS members in a good light. It is amazing to me how people who proclaim to follow Jesus, can be so hateful and vengeful.
Second! Thank you for this!
It’s pretty apparent that Michelle has done considerable research but intentionally avoids the data that directly invalidates her claims.
But I’m really happy she was on. We need these bad ideas exposed.
Thank you for that. Yes I agree on the Prophet Joseph Smith. We just don't like talking about him in the church. After trying to stomach these two for a few moments, the scripture came to mind..."ye shall have no disputations among you"....and this "interview" was more like Jerry Springer than any true doctrine and definitely DID NOT bring any spirit of truth or light by either one of them. "Itching ears" come to mind. What does this have to do with anything in our current lives moving forward? Nothing. Just fodder for the spiritually weak. No winner here, just discontent.
@@ca417pc9I’ve watched many of her videos. She doesn’t discount any evidence. She not only shows the evidence, but finds out what was happening historically at that time. One of the fascinating episodes to me was on the Whitney letter, which those who claim that Joseph practiced and taught polygamy point to as THE smoking gun. She retraced Joseph’s and Emma’s steps on the days preceding the letter and put it in context of what was going on at the time.
@@ca417pc9 Michelle was answering the questions Greg asked. If she is missing anything she has invited anyone on her podcast to engage. I have studied Brian Hales work, his best arguments and frankly it has been debunked on excellent scholarship. If you want to talk cherry picking, how come no one on the monogomy denier side is talking about the document called, "The Voice of Innocence?" Look up the transcript. It condemns every possible rendition of polygamy. This was voted on and accepted by the entire body of the Church in April of 1844, approx 2 months before the martyrdom. Joseph Smith presided, his voice was giving him issues so Phelps read it. The Joseph Smith papers won't include it in that portion of the papers. But Sidney Rigby is recorded to have commented that happened and the 2 AMENS to it are both recorded on those conference papers. Instead, The Church historians file it in 2 other places. One in the Relief Society minutes, and they imply Emma is the engine but the paperwork does not support their misleading narrative. Emma had it posted in the paper as was customary for Church policy. The 1844 printing of the D&C had been paused. Considering this was Joseph Smith's process and what we know he was doing to fight polygamy at the time--it is not a high leap to assume he had planned to insert this document to fortify the Lord's law of marriage, monogamy, in the D&C. But He was arrested and the presses did not resume until after the martyrdom. And oddly, it was not inserted but other items were. Ask Brian Hales why he ignores this document....
Brigham lied about Emma trying to kill Joseph, he lied about Oliver Cowdrey being a polygamist, he lied about Joseph saying that Hyrum would lead the church to hell, he lied about Emma conspiring with the mob to kill Joseph.
I’m sure Greg would agree that these are lies. But lie about polygamy? No way, that’s just not possible….
When you are Brigham’s eternal terrestrial servant, you can ask him about those apparent lies.
@@knelson3326 That was actually pretty funny. Apparent lies? You think Brigham wasn’t lying?
@@Commenter2121 I wouldn’t be caught dead evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed. It’s the fast lane to apostasy.
@@knelson3326 That’s the attitude that is dangerous. It’s one thing to sustain leaders and follow their council when they lead in righteousness. It’s quite another to blindly obey and live in fear rather than speak out when you see a problem. I hope you don’t feel like you can’t think for yourself.
@@Commenter2121 The only thing I fear is your spiritual well-being. The point of sustaining is to forgive our leaders’ weaknesses. I don’t follow blindly, but doing so would be better than accusing them like Lucifer.
The daughter of Don Carlos didn't believe polygamy was of God. She wrote letter trying to convince her cousin Joseph F Smith that it was wrong. At 1:32
I don’t think she convinced him.
@@oshemer5066 God taught that polygamy is an abomination. Why don't we believe him?
@@jacbox3889Why did the Lord provide for it in the Law of Moses then? Why didn’t Jesus nor any of his apostles in the New Testament ever condemn it? The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that plural marriage is part of His law and part of the New and Everlasting Covenant.
@@oshemer5066 JACOB 1-3 and Jeremiah 23 will answer your question I think.
Here is the LORD speaking through JACOB, condemning past, present and future polygamy:
1:17 Wherefore I, Jacob, gave unto them these words as I taught them in the temple, having FIRST OBTAINED MY ERRAND FROM THE LORD. 2:2...I come up into the temple this day that I might declare unto you the word of God. 22:5...know that by the help of the all powerful creator of heaven and earth I can tell you concerning your thoughts... 2:9...strict commandments which I have receive from God... 2:10...I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations....and under the piercing eye of the Almighty God. 2:11...I must tell you the truth according to the plainness of the word of God. For behold, as I inquired of the Lord, THUS CAME THE WORD UNTO ME SAYING: "Jacob, get thou up into the temple on the morrow, and declare the word of which I SHALL GIVE THEE...2:12 ...this is the word which I declare unto you...2:23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. for BEHOLD< THIS SAITH THE LORD: "This people begin to wax in iniquity; THEY UNDERSTAND NOT THE SCRIPTURES, FOR THE SEEK TO EXCUSE THEMSELVES IN COMMITTING WHOREDOMS, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. -----NOTE: right here people claim that Jacob was wrong and didn't have the latest light and knowledge about David, Solomon, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. Jacob makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR IT IS THE LORD REVEALING THESE WORDS. This just highlights one of the many theological contridictions of 132.... Now I continue with the exact words the LORD GAVE TO JACOB: 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable to me, SAITH THE LORD. 25 Wherefore, THUS SAITH THE LORD, I HAVE LED THIS PEOPLE FORTH OUT OF THE LAND OF JERUSALEM, BY THE POWER OF MY ARM, THAT I MIGHT RAISE UP UNTO ME A RIGHTEOUS BRANCH FROM THE FRUIT OF THE LOINS OF JOSEPH. 26 Wherefore, I THE LORD GOD WILL NOT SUFFER that this people shall do like unto them of old. ((HMM Them of old is a very encompassing net--bringing them to the new world for a fresh start to establish a RIGHTEOUS people through MONOGAMY)) 2:27 Wherefore my brethren, and HEARKEN TO THE WORD OF THE LORD: "For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 for I THE LORD GOD, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; THUS SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS, OR CURSED BE THE LAND FOR THEIR SAKES." ((note--there are actually 3 commandments that are addressed in this talk: pride, not caring for the poor and desiring/obtaining any more than one wife/concubines.
Elder Bednar just said in conference, The Book of Mormon is a futuristic book and written for OUR DAY. I would add, that the Lord was already condemning the Church for not heeding The book of Mormon 2 years after the organization.
I think Jacob makes it clear these are the LORD GOD OF HOSTS words condemning polygamy in the past, present, future, the old world and the new world. And remember, out of the thousands of records Mormon culled, Jacob's talk condemning polygamy made the cut. Another good one is Jeremiah 23...talking about the latter days. Another is D&C section 101 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants law on marriage and it became 109 in the 1844 version at the time of the martyrdom. It stayed in the D& C until 1876 when D&C 132 was added.
Now, The Book of Mormon went through some changes under Brigham. Footnotes were added, changes to how chapters and verses, some text changes and narratives added to influence how people were to interpret the doctrines. Jacobs talk really suffers because people do not read the full talk in context and it makes it much easier to wrest or twist the doctrines. A footnote was made to cause people to stumble and interpret Jacob as saying sometimes polygamy is authorized and footnotes to the brand new D&C132.
One of the beauties of scripture study is the lively way the Spirit can speak to us at different eras and times of our lives and times in the world. The narratives are restrictive and sometimes lead our study astray. Personally I wish they would remove them, and also revisit how Jacob 1-3 is chopped up.
Now we get to verse 30 and people like to pluck it out of 3 chapters which were just one chapter, and remove it from its context and claim this talk actually is teaching the opposite of what it is teaching. Astonishing.
Then the Lord explains WHY his law of marriage is monogamy--because it breaks the tender hearts of women and fathers lose the confidence of their children. And this plays out in every scriptural account of polygamy and there is a great deal of evidence this is how it played out in modern times and continues unfortunately to play out.
I stand with Elder Bednar, lets believe The Book of Mormon.
I don't assume that all the apostles support 132. President Hinckley said on national television with Larry King, and I recall my jaw dropping at the time, that he did not think polygamy was doctrinal. It really puzzled for a long time until I read about the removal of the Priesthood ban.
Hope that helps.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c president Hinckley saying it’s not doctrine can also be interpreted to mean “it’s not a current teaching (doctrine) and practice of our church. You can argue it either way pretty easily IMO.
Great interview and allowing your guest to talk. Thank you also for your honest pushback while still being respectful to someone we obviously disagree with.
Several years ago I read the book Putting on Christ and felt very compelled to seek the face of Christ. I spent a lot of time in the scriptures, the temple and in prayer. In asking God what he wanted me learn polygamy kept coming up. I had been fine with polygamy, wasn't excited to practice it, but had excepted it. So finally I started a very long and intense study of it and was very shocked at what I learned. I had assumed God wanted me to study it because he was going to bring it back. What I learned was the exact opposite. I no longer believe God ever commanded anyone to ever practice it and I no longer believe Joseph Smith ever practiced it. I had a very strong witness in the temple and also had a very special dream with Joseph and Emma explaining that they need to be exonerated!
I'm still and active temple going member. My testimony is actually stronger!
My testimony so so much more alive in Christ! I feel I now can completely surrender to His will. I know now for sure I am not an object to him.
❤
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c Wow! I love that. None of God's children are an object to Him.
If men were to put the shoe on the other foot, and consider the possibility that righteous women who have gone through life in a mostly subservient and often beaten down status to men throughout almost all of human history, that for their suffering they will be exalted in the next life and be blessed and glorified by having the privilege to be sealed to multiple men, and men will have the honor of serving with one wife among many of her other husbands …then that might not seem so exalted for men who believe in polygamy.
[One of the reasons I try to treat my wife as nicely as I know how to (and she says I’ve gotten better over the years). I’m just trying to hedge my bet to make sure that she’ll want to be with me in the next life.]
Thank you for sharing this! Heavenly Father has also answered my question about polygamy…years ago. It has made it so much easier for me to totally embrace Heavenly Father and His guidance in my life
@@tennisgirl57 why would all 12 boys of Israel be under the covenant if polygamy wasn’t valid, only Leah‘s sons would be under the covenant. Also, how could you trust the temple ceremony if you don’t if you think from Brigam on they were lying. Also, you have to answer about Fannie Alger. All real historians say that Joseph practice polygamy and there is a lot of evidence.
We have dozens of recorded contemporary instances of Joseph, Emma and Hyrum denying, condemning and fighting against polygamy. I believe Joseph was honest.
What about Abraham lying to Pharoah?
@@CryptoSurferWhen did he lie to a pharaoh? When he said his half sister was his sister?
@@DerekPayne1791 So half-truths aren't lies, or at the very least, deceptive?
@@JGAOK Yup Abraham lied and was in error for it.
Is it possible in your view that they condemned and fought against the unauthorized use of plural marriage, but not the authorized use? And if they believed God commanded it, it was not only okay but necessary?
Much of what Michelle is saying makes sense to me. Shouldn’t we believe Joseph’s own statements over the decades later stories?
That's the lazy, spiritually immature approach by members who can't emotionally handle the issue of plural marriage and nuance.
@@jaredshipp9207 "Evening at home and walked up and down the street with my scribe. Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives. On this, Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife." Joseph Smith, 5 October 1843
@@HistoricalMonogamyDoctrine "if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. If he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment" God, July 12, 1843, as recorded in D&C 132
@@jaredshipp9207It's exactly the reverse.
Your natural man is Dense AF and can only compute words smooth to your ego, polygamist are your king Noah.
@jaredshipp9207 and follow the prophet is maximum effort and spiritually independent.
21 Min. With all due respect, my question for Greg would be, "How close was Joseph to Joseph? How close was Emma to Joseph? How close was Hyrum to Joseph?" All three of them were clear in their contemporary, verifiable statements regarding polygamy. They said polygamy was wrong; an abomination. Yes, the reality is that there had to be someone lying. It was either Joseph, Emma and Hyrum or those who were pushing for polygamy. I believe Joseph, Emma and Hyrum.
That's such a load of crap. None of you "I believe Joseph crowd" really believe Joseph. It's not like you say, "Well l, while I don't believe Joseph instituted plural marriage, Brigham was also a prophet and had the prophetic mantle to do it." No, your immediately conclusion is that if Joseph didn't start it, it wasn't legitimate. Which shows its about the issue for you, not what Joseph did or didn't do. Each of you revisionists would throw Joseph under the bus just as fast as you have Brigham and other prophets.
@@jaredshipp9207 Name one prophet of the restoration that has anywhere near the connection to heaven that Joseph did. I believe Joseph because I believe the BOM, temple, Pearl of great Price, JST, work for the dead. I believe Joseph when he said “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one”, because I see the fruits of his work as the fruits of Christ.
@@4rcgoodwin And that kind of faulty thinking is why we have people writing off everything from Brigham Young, eventually apostatizing and cutting themselves off from the Church, while telling themselves they are being loyal to Joseph and the Restoration.
@@jaredshipp9207 Those be some big baby tears you're crying.
@dougknighton5348 Just calling out apostasy when I see it.
One thing that people don't clarify enough is dynastic sealings. A lot of people equate sealing with marriage, but a large part of the confusion is the fact the Joseph was practicing dynastic sealings, the same as one person might be sealed to their parents to create a "web" of the exalting ordinance. Not marriage!
@christhompson2034 I was taught this years ago. Sealing for exaltation. Then, as I understand it, it was clarified that they are sealed to their own spouse, not the prophet, and corrections were made for married women to be sealed to their own husband's, or single sisters when they eventually got married.
The Church admits they really don't know exactly what Joseph's doctrine was about sealings. That is food for thought.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4csources please, too many people make up stuff these days
@@BrianTerrill Ok. it is late, so will grab that tomorrow.
Why did the LDS Church change this word, “fathers”? Are you aware that Jacob 3:5 says: "for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father” (singular) [It should say "fathers" (plural) but the LDS Church removed “fathers” in the 1981 Printing going forward] “-that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none,” [In the 1835 Book of Mormon it says "Fathers" because the commandment to have only one wife was the commandment going all the way back to Adam and Eve and forward to this present day, [all the fathers]. All past, present, and future generations are to have one wife]. This has always been the law of God in a marriage relationship. (Book of Mormon | Jacob 1-3)!
Good question.
Jeremy Hoop covered that very item in his latest video on "Still Mormon" from last week . . .
If polygamy was bad since the days of Adam that would mean Abraham was a sinner and committing sin and this verse cannot be true: "5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5)
@@BrianTerrillHe repented, made covenants when his name was changed and he was righteous overall, he made a mistake of following a cultural practice.
@Hmcc0712 your answer contrifmdicts what the scriptures and God say. You just made that answer up.
And for the record, Abraham had his name changed while he was still a practicing polygamist and "culturally" the people were practicing Sodomy and yet God befriended, appeared to and blest a polygamist but destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Your ownswer is totally wrong, and a strong reason I reject Evangelical Christianty. Those made up answers are common for them.
I can't wait for the day when all will be revealed!
This has already been revealed, but it will continue to be affirmed in the future. She'll still deny it.
@@EKowallis I'm not against either one of them. I'm just tired of all the contention. Polygamy is such a difficult topic and i think there is... truth on both sides.
@@alisadunn5443 Stating the truth is NOT contention.
@@EKowallis Contention is born in anger and/or vanity. You are right that contending with things, true or not in friendly conversation is not contention. :>)
But wait, lds claim to have prophets who should be able yo get answers and revelation for the church. Hmmm
Ether 10: 5 “Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines” Did those who lived polygamy read this?!
He was an exception 😁
There’s a bit more to that scripture if you keep reading.
@@kencard777 remember if there are any scriptures where someone ever practiced it, we can perform amazing mental gymnastics to prove they were exceptions so we don’t have to face the tough reality of making a mistake. Almost like we are anti repentance.
Concubines.
@@kencard777 were they given to Riplakish by God?
Thank you Greg for allowing Michelle to speak! I may be one of the few members of the LDS church who rejects polygamy but remains active in church, I hold a calling, I attend the temple as often as I can (I love the temple!!!) I believe Russell M. Nelson is a prophet. I sustain the 12 apostles and I’m looking forward to listening to the messages this conference weekend. I believe the best sources for truth on the topic of polygamy are the Book of Mormon and what Joseph and Hyrum had to say about it. I feel the same way about polygamy as I do about the priesthood ban… we got it wrong! Let us repent and move on!
Ditto
Yes
Amen! Totally agree!
You're not alone! Most of us reject polygamy in our hearts but hold onto it for fear of what it might mean about our leaders and our faith tradition. But fear and love cannot coexist. We must choose one or the other
@@justinbarnum6442 trust me you are not one of the few. There are way more who believe this but are silent because of the attacks they’d receive. At least half the church believes polygamy was false.
What Michelle says about a woman not giving her whole heart to her husband because she is afraid she will have to share him later. I have struggled immensely with this throughout an otherwise very happy marriage.
It’s a very valid concern. Read The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy, many members feel the same way.
I'm sorry. The Historical Monogamy Doctrine site might contain the peace that you have so far been without.
Jojo, my heart goes out to you having such a worry. One thing I've learned in life is that we sometimes unintentionally create our own misery through our own worries. I've done it. And in my case it's destroyed marriages. Just know that the power is in you to free yourself from this. It's not the doctrine/practice, it's the way you view it and deal with it. If I were to suggest a book, I would suggest 'the mindful path to self-compassion' by Christopher Germer. The first half of that book was eye-opening to me to understand how we create our own misery with what we ruminate on.
Same for me.
@@charinabottae Generally, I agree with your statement. However regarding polygamy, this is just another “your feelings are the problem, not the doctrine” statement, which is completely false. The doctrine and practice of polygamy itself is destructive. That has been thoroughly researched and proven across time.
Greg, I really appreciate you being brave enough to have Michelle on. She's probably studied this topic more than about anyone else at this point. I do get that it's really heavy and kind of a red pill but Michelle has volumes and volumes more of information that leads to her beliefs on this subject. I do appreciate the common ground you guys both found where it's acknowledged that polygamy would be hard and a lot of us men wouldn't want it.
@@ancientcosmicclock she has cherry picked her sources. She spins every point to fit the narrative she wants, and puts her own spin over the revelation to the prophets seers and revelators. She contorts the plain and simple wording of Jacob 2:30, as interpreted by Prophets, to mean something completely different.
@g71816 haven't both sides cherry picked? If we are honest, there are a lot of contradicting accounts and narratives in regards to polygamy. If you take every first-hand account of Joseph, talks, unedited journal entries, his personal notes in his BoM, all of it, are not for polygamy but anti-polygamy. She's one of the voices defending Joseph, and not labeling him a liar. The anti-mormons are picking the church apart on this subject, and waves of people are leaving over this, because they think Joseph was dishonest, and calling him a pedophile. Can't you see that she's defending him? What do you suggest she do?
@@g71816 Have you researched the topic?…like…AT ALL? It’s all right in the Joseph Smith papers.
@@g71816 Sorry but that accusation does not hold water. Michelle has sought to address every piece of evidence out there. She has also come forward with a boatload of new, very credible evidence and oddly is being snubbed. It is Jacob 1-3 that is being chopped up and misrepresented. And the evidence is, you cherrypicked one verse out of a very plain and simple talk, the words of which were the Lords own to Jacob. Quit wresting the scriptures to support a house of cards narrative. Thank you.
@@ancientcosmicclock Michelle has invited anyone on her show to present any missing evidence. So if you want to accuse her of cherrypicking, come on her show and bring your stuff.
The way she speaks to those who disagree with her, including new convert David Alexander, is vitriolic, not mention how she is openly disrespectful and antagonistic towards the prophet with her fruit loops leprechaun meme, she embodies contention and pride.
ETA: around 7:00 she essentially sets herself up as knowing better than the prophet who is deceived.
I do think we should look into history, and be very careful about claiming truth exclusive to our own present perceptions (paying attention to the attitude with which we talk to and treat others. )
David Alexander has done some amazing videos taking her to task. He’s awesome.
I love David Alexander, but the church admits that the leaders of the church were misinformed about blacks and the priesthood for many years. We also believe John Taylor was misinformed about his revelation that polygamy could never be abandoned by the church.
Whatever David told me to leave the church… because I believe what God and the Savior have stated that marriage is between one man and one woman!
@@TheFamilyLife6No, David Alexander was so far off base in his attack on Michele Stone. He is so misinformed and the clips he used more fully condemned his view while strengthening Michele’s approach. Her responses to her critics have been very respectful. Especially when Jacob Hanson, who I follow and have great respect for, dishonestly misrepresented what she presented. This “polygamy denier” view (an epitaph to associate with Holocaust denier) will continue to grow exponentially and the church will have to deal with it because the truth is on the side that Joseph never taught or practiced polygamy. As the historical documents come to light, this is just undeniable and actually brought me great relief. Regardless of the position one holds, what was most shocking to me, who read and accepted all the Gospel Topic essays, and had no previous position, and only looked at this because of a very close friend leaving the church when she studied the historical record as a seminary teacher, what shocked me the most was how deceptive our church had been. Brian Hales, who wrote the Gospel Topic essays, just lied about what the historical record says. He hid and misrepresented documents that countered his view. That opened my eyes to really study this issue and my position changed.
Michele Stone is a terrible communicator, it there are many others who just make the documents available so that we can read Joseph Smiths own words, read Hyrum Smith’s own talk given in conference in 1844 completely against polygamy. His remarks against polygamy were removed from the official church history. But we have the talk as it was given. For me, this was such a relief. I no longer have to defend what my heart always told me was an abomination. Polygamy did not come from Joseph Smith. He vehemently fought against it. Now that the full historical record is coming out, we can cleanse this chapter from the church just as we cleansed Brigham’s view of Adam God, blacks and the priesthood etc. We will be so much the better for it and can hopefully come out from the condemnation spoken of by the Lord that we need to not only say, but do what the Book of Mormon teaches. Polygamy is a big one that needs to be repented of.
I thought she was respectful and sincere in her arguments. It's difficult squeezing years of research on a nuanced subject into an hour
Jacob 2:30 is not a loophole. Every time “things” is mentioned in that chapter it refers to whoredoms and abominations. Look it up. Then if the Lord doesn’t command his people (to be monogamous) they will hearken unto these things (whoredoms and abominations).
Polygamy is not a godly principle. Early leaders got it wrong. It’s ok to discard it and believe that the best place to build Zion is within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This! Yes!!! There is no bloody loophole in Jacob. That verse is quite literally the summation of the entire chapter and quite possibly the center of a chiasma.
@@nadingos If you look at the practice of polygamy throughout the scriptures and in Utah, you will find not only the abomination of polygamy that Jacob warned about, but pride, not hearing the cries of the women and children, and not caring for the poor. And if you question the not caring and not hearing, and the pride, consider that Utah also was a SLAVE STATE and Brigham Young used his Church authority unrighteously to make that happen. Fortunately, the Lord's other inspired document, the constitution--and a group of caring women not of our faith, worked to get the attention of the United States Government and the Public to shut polygamy down or we would likely still be living it today.
@stevebaer-eicpr This is the best explanation I've learned about for Jacob 2:30 not being a loophole. In verses 23, 24 & 34 it does relate "thing" to unrighteously taking of wives and concubines, and in verse 25 it references Lehi leading the people out of the land of Jerusalem to raise up righteous see. Thanks.
God told Joseph Smith there were false brethren making false accusation against him.
How can you say that the original 101 “one man one wife” makes room for polygamous marriage when it literally says this….
….”Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin…..”
Women were also encouraged to leave their husbands (even members of the church) to be in polygamous marriages if they can find someone with “higher keys.” What about these sources??
And ironically, Joseph and Hyrum taught that a man or woman should not leave their non believing spouse to join the Saints. They understood that families needed to stay together.
What year was this created? It wasn't in response to the Nauvoo Era... have you studied why this particular section was added? What aspects of marriage in early Colonial America was experiencing? This quote is used AS IF it was in response to Nauvoo which it wasn't.
@@zionssuburb This was written in 1835 as a response to accusations against the Saints in Ohio, during a time they were accused of polygamy due to many cochranites joining the church, and due to the law of consecration. It was reiterated in Nauvoo multiple times as result of continued polygamy accusations in Nauvoo. Cowdrey was gone by Nauvoo so the continued use of this statement shows that it was repeatedly perpetrated with Joseph’s support up until his death.
He answers that and his answer is unfathomable, deceitful. I cannot imagine the feelings of his wife, if he has one, hearing him explain it. 😢
Greg, I appreciate your willingness to engage with good faith actors who have a different perspective or your outright disagree with. While there were some moments that the both of you got emotional (it's a very emotional topic), you both handled it well.
Actors is a good way of describing her.
At the hour mark, Greg is being ridiculous. He ignores D&C 42 “he shall cleave unto her and NONE else” and then argues that polygamous marriage (poly = many) is still an agreement between one man and one woman. Sheer wresting of the scriptures.
I agree that polygamous marriages were not agreements between one man and all his wives at once, but you cannot ignore D&C 42.
“None else.”
Yes, I agree. This is Greg's weakest argument, least thought out comment ever. And I usually agree with him!
Agree. In addition, marrying other women would automatically break the covenant of marriage with the first!
No, you’re missing what he is saying. He is saying those women were not sealed to more than one man which would be polyandry. They were married for time to one man and then sealed to another man to make dynastic connections for the afterlife which is how they understood it at that time.
Polygamy is one man sealed to many women, polyandry is one woman sealed to many men; as those early Saints understood it. The women weren’t sealed to more than one man n their lifetime therefore they didn’t practice polyandry. That was his point.
@@amynazzaThis is more evidence that 132 is NOT of God. Christ did not encourage men to build kingdoms for themselves in the afterlife. He did not even want his apostles considering who would have the most important position in relation to Him.
It is called WOKE MATH. I live in California. 1 plus 1 and 1 plus 1 can equal either 2 or 4--it is up for interpretation... And, it would be racist to focus on getting the correct answer.
Just starting but I want to say that I really appreciate and respect you, Greg, for having Michelle on to explain her views herself. If men having many wives and concubines is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we each need to embrace it and defend it with everything we’ve got. If it isn’t, we must change our minds. It will be much better for us all if we get aligned with God’s view of this doctrine before standing before God ourselves.
I agree with this, 100%. This is a difficult issue at best. I don't think either side of the debate is slam dunk, and I wish we could discuss this with that understanding. Neither side is without evidence, so we should all come to the table with a willingness to sift through and assess the credibility of the various bits of evidence.
@@OmahaAreaLoya Yes, you really can find enough evidence on both sides to justify a choice of belief. Just like believing in a higher power or atheism, the golden rule or the survival of the fittest. I strongly believe this is intentional on God’s part. What kind of world and heaven do we want? If we could choose, would we choose this?
@@gwendolynwyne please do a response video- I’m dying over the false assumptions and that those who haven’t even really looked into this just dismiss it saying it can’t be true and is just an emotional response to not wanting polygamy.
@@gwendolynwyne completely. This “doctrine of many wives and concubines” needs to be investigated with both being possible. Especially considering Joseph Smiths own words. I have believed both ways and I am very at peace now with the way God has shown to me. It is in line with the scriptures.
Just like Abraham had to repent from practicing concubinage, we should repent from multiple wives.
What a tremendous interview! Thanks Greg, for lending your platform to a consideration of Truth on tough and precarious subjests. Michelle, thanks for your level-headedness, courage and boldness! I very much enjoyed the prductive coversation!
When Greg says at the hour mark “I don’t want anything to do with it” shows his own soul is testifying to him how gross it is. Why say that if there is nothing wrong with it? It’s the light of Christ testifying to you.
I saw a short of one of these polygamy deniers. He said the way you know the “truth” was taught to him. He said to take off your garments and then pray about it. Sounds like a perfect recipe to be deceived!
For me, evidence that she has been deceived includes her inability to finish any of his counter arguments to its logical conclusion, the chaotic method in which she presents her arguments, bouncing from one to the other evidence when one is challenged, and her attacking the absolute wrong part of Greg’s counter arguments, blowing up portions that have nothing to do with his point. She is all chaos and confusion. That is not the Spirit. I myself tend to be chaotic, but when I have the Spirit of the Lord with me and it is necessary to do so, I can make concise and direct points that make perfect sense. It’s a fruit of the Spirit.
In other words, put off your covenants and pray about it for an answer from the god of this world.
How about read the book of Mormon? Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
@@4rcgoodwin
Again, that has nothing to do with what I said. Chaos.
@@4rcgoodwin Israel had 4 Wives and bestowed highly prophetic blessings upon his Sons. How about you read Jacob 2:30...
You have to create and eat scriptural spaghetti to come to the same conclusions as Ms. Stone.
Hagar absolutely was a slave. See Galatians 4:22-23 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Correct. Hagar and her son mocked Isaac and Sarah. Sarah was within her legal and spiritual rights. In the matrilineal patriarchy, it was Sarah's duty, authority and responsibility to birth, select and train up the next patriarch. It was not Abraham's right. This is also why Rebecca chose Jacob over Esau. There was no deception. It was her God given choice.
Thank you, Greg, for having Michelle on! She has done so much research on this! When I read Jacob's sermon even way back on my mission, it is so plain that polygamy is an abomination, a whoredom and a grosser crime. God wouldn't be OK and then not OK with changing doctrine. God speaks plainly and is unchanging. This now makes so much sense to me and speaks to my heart.
Are you still LDS? I’m so THANKFUL to believe neither. Each side makes God, Jesus, Joseph Smith, or the current LDS church and prophets A-holes. I am so so relieved and at peace to belief none of it. Such a heartbreak to be in between this entire mess.
@@natalies4375 Sorry to hear...
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c It’s definitely been a heartbreaking loss.
Greg, I love your channel! This was a ballsy interview, so I tip my hat to you. But if your going to dance with the bull, you need to do your homework. You really should have watched some of Michelle's key episodes before the interview to better inform your questions. You spent the majority of the time rehashing basic things she has addressed at nauseum on her channel. She generally does not "cherry-pick" as you assert several times. She thoroughly (and verbosely) addresses both sides of the argument and faces contrary evidence fairly. Michelle rightfully declares this to be an important topic and each of us LDS need to face it with courage, open hearts and with ears to hear. The reason your comments are filled with emotion is because this information radically changes our worldview of "modern prophets" and requires us to really scrutinize our centralized institution. For many, this information has shattered unfounded testimonies. But for others (like me) it has initiated a spiritual revival. My first reaction to this information was similar to yours. But after study and prayer, the spirit has promptly taught me. This isn't RLDS doctrine. It's simply truth. Joseph taught us to embrace truth, despite it's origin. I have no intention of leaving the church and hope that this discovery can serve as a fire that will turn us towards the Savior in a meaningful way. You seem keen to frame this topic as a binary (e.g., Brigham was either a true prophet or conspirator against Joseph's life, Abraham was either a perfect man or an adulterer). Reality (as you well know) is much more nuanced.
@18:30, again your "natural trail" assumes a binary (e.g. polygamy was from God vs. a conspiratorial cabal to cover it up). Reality is always more complicated. One possible angle is that the Brighamites' justification of polygamy comes from a misunderstanding of Joseph's doctrine of sealing (here is one attempt to alternatively explain this doctrine: scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/glossary/adoption). There is strong evidence that Joseph was "sealing" people to him, both male and female. Most of the females were pregnant and husbands even participated in the ordinance [ref the work of Don Bradley]. Those that were zealous about spiritual wifery (concept adopted from other revival religions of the time) sought justification for the practice and found it in this idea of sealing. I don't think the Brighamites were necessarily explicitly "lying" about Joseph, they were simply very motivated to find a prophetic justification for their understanding. They may have even felt very strongly that the practice was righteous. The "cabal" theory is unlikely. There is a beautiful scriptural word for this phenomena: apostasy.
Thanks for commenting. I have done my homework but did not want to speak much in this interview. I'll do that another time. My goal was to let her speak and give her opinions and conclusions. I wanted to put light on this and the best way is for her to do it herself.
@@CwicShow Fair enough. Good stuff. Thanks for reading my comment. You're a good man and I really enjoy learning from you. I especially love the Bruce Porter stuff.
What if she is right? What if Brigham was a fallen prophet? Worse, what if he was no prophet at all; what if he was a usurper?
Would God‘s plans be frustrated? would the entire church be false?
I don’t think so. God‘s plans cannot be frustrated. The Book of Mormon remains true, no matter what. And this church remains Christ’s Church, even if imperfect, even if damaged, even if wrong in certain key instances.
I know this much. The Book of Mormon says only bad things about polygamy, but it has a whole lot to say about the “remnant of Jacob.“
Jesus Christ himself, after the resurrection, and after his brief sermon on the mountain, spoke about nothing but the remnant of Jacob. That is the focus of the Book of Mormon.
And it was pretty much close to the sole focus of Joseph Smith. In the fall of 1844, he planned to travel to the Rocky Mountains to find a place to live with the Lamanites, who are among the Native Americans.
But he died, obviously, and then Brigham Young came to the Rocky Mountains, but he did not live peacefully with the Lamanites.
The church took a hard turn into apostasy when it took on polygamy. In my view, we barely survived it. It’s a real mercy that the Lord arranged to have polygamy quashed in this church. It’s one of the proofs to me, in fact, that the Lord does direct this church.
But he can do it only through imperfect humans. We do the best we can.
Mormon 8
36. ...and your churches, yea, even every one, have become POLLUTED because of the pride of your hearts.
D&C 124
32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.
The Nauvoo house was never finished. Church was rejected. 3 years later, both smith prophets were murdered.
D&C 124
45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.
46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they POLLUTE mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.
They did not listen and were moved from their place. All the way to SLC.
The time of the gentiles is up. The gospel will go from them back to the house of israel. (3 nephi 16: 10-11)
Well said. And that is why I still believe. Alma, although a wicked priest of Noah, still held the priesthood. His power or authority wasn't truly efficacious until he repented. Michelle is correct, we are still under condemnation for not taking the Book of Mormon as seriously as we should.
@@evamat Interesting. Do you believe a church can fall?
@@evamat According to many, if polygamy originated from Brigham Young, it would invalidate his keys and the modern prophets. This is plainly incorrect. It is not how priesthood keys work, currently or anciently.
As per the church handbook (38.2.6), unworthiness is not something that invalidates an ordinance, including ordinances that confer priesthood keys. If a stake president is excommunicated, for adultery, apostasy, or even murder, it does not invalidate any of the ordinations he performed. Otherwise, an investigation would have to be performed to discover when he became unworthy, and which ordinances and temple work would have to be redone. Alma the younger received his priesthood authority from king Noah (Msh 11:5), a man openly committing adultery and who killed Abinadi. If this does not invalidate Alma’s authority, you’ll be hard pressed to argue that Brigham’s keys would be invalidated for lying about polygamy’s origins. (Additionally, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff were ordained by Joseph, not Brigham, so it’s a null point anyways.)
You might ask, “wouldn’t this mean the Catholic Church still has keys?” The answer is still no. The Catholic Church abandoned the apostolic order, relevant ordinances, and permanently adopted false creeds and doctrines. Whereas we have not, and have rejected false doctrines taught by Brigham.
Ultimately, we do not believe in a gospel of perfection. Jesus died so that we might not be condemned by the mistakes of our past. Just as God is eager to forgive us of our sins individually, even heinous ones, so too is He eager to forgive us institutionally.
“Ordinances of the priesthood are valid if they are performed by authorized priesthood bearers in the prescribed manner.… The ordinance does not become invalid if someone involved is unworthy at the time he participates. The sanctity of the ordinance is violated, but not the validity. ” Rex W Allred (Melchizedek General Priesthood Committee), Liahona, March 1989
@@Nunya45573read the book of mormon again and you’ll find your answer
I think you are wrong, Greg. Her argument is totally valid. Also if you read in the Nemenhah record, Christ Himself explains what he says about polygamy
How can you ignore what the Book of Mormon says about David and Solomon having many wives and concubines being abominable?
We don’t , but how can you ignore Doctrine and Covenants 132 which agrees with Jacob 2, but goes into more detail as to why David and Solomon were condemned. Another thing you will find is that neither Jacob nor 132 condemn Abraham, Jacob, Nathaniel etc. who were involved in polygamy.
@@andrewdurfee3896 D&C 132 does not go into more detail, it is an exact fulfillment of what was warned against in Jacob 2, which says men misunderstand scripture when they try to justify the whoredom and abomination of polygamy and concubines bc of what is written of David and Solomon. D&C does just that, even using the word justify.
David and Solomon were Kings. They were not prophets. Back in those days, God told them not to marry "strange women" from other nations, especially Cannanites, because the priesthood couldn't be passed down to their children if they did so. The whole idea of Celestial Plural Marriage is to increase a righteous line of Priesthood.
@@Hmcc0712 how can you ignore Jacob chapter 2, verses 29 and 30, where God asserts that polygamy has purpose and a reason, “to raise up righteous seed” into Him, and that He can command the law of plural marriage to be in effect when necessary and appropriate. When it isn’t necessary or appropriate, we are to live the law of monogamy. The Lord decides the who, what, where, when and how the law of plural marriage is to be practiced, and these scriptures supports that fact.
“Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
@@adamfoster3493the verses in polygamy in Jacob 2 are a chiasmus if you don’t interpret it that way. The only reason we do is that we were told to interpret it like this not because that’s what it’s actually saying. “These things” in context w the rest of the chapter is talking about whoredoms and abominations that god is always having to warn against otherwise people always do them.
Ok people like quotes from accusers and enemies of Joseph Smith, how about quotes from neutral parties about Brigham?
Schuyler Colfax's conversation with Brigham, June 17, 1865. The matter of polygamy was brought up by Brigham, himself, and in the course of his remarks he is reported to have declared that "... the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants declared for monogamy, but that polygamy was a later revelation commanded by God to him and a few others, and permitted and advised to the rest of the church." From Schuyler Colfax's Journal, quoted in The Western Galaxy, Vol. I, p. 247.
Brigham Young tells Senator Lyman Trumbull “polygamy, which you object to, was not originally a part of our system, but was adopted by us as a necessity, after we came here [Utah]” - (Brigham Young, interview with Senator Lyman Trumbull, July 10, 1869; published in Chicago Tribune July 26, 1869;)
Interesting.
I would tweak Brigham‘s “a little bit to be “we adopted Lume as a manner to safe journey from the Midwest, where we are persecuted to a safe land in Deseret it help us survive.
@@MBowler polygamy was not needed for survival. People could help with the poor and the widows without engaging in sexual relations with them under the guise of religion.
@@MBowler are you aware of the tattoo of men to women in Nauvoo and Utah?
Another fantastic video! Thank you! I don't agree with her conclusions, but I'm glad to be able to hear her thoughts and research. Glad you did this interview.
Knowing how controversial this topic is, thanks for having Michelle on and respectfully letting her talk. She has compelling new evidence, and evidence that has been ignored that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. Thank you for facilitating the important conversation and not censoring someone you may not agree with.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c thank you! I really appreciate this. Being able to have a difference of opinion while having a civil conversation and respecting one another even after disagreeing.
Building Zion… we are supposed to love those that are different than ourselves. That’s much more than tolerating. If we can’t even listen and respect, then how can we ever expect to love and care?
I'm sorry, but trying to say within polygamy marriage has always been between one man and one woman is wild. I've never heard anyone try to make that point before. Sounds a lot like John Bennetts justification for spiritual wifery.
I haven't really followed Michelle Stone and don't know that much about the history of our churches polygamy, but she really was convincing here. The constant huffing and puffing from Greg reminds me of a liberal college student in a biology class.
I have a SIL who says she is fine with polygamy as long as the wives are married to each other too-meaning orgies happening under 1 roof with all individuals married to each other. This type of attitude is what Greg was referring to when he said polygamy is still made up of 1 man with individual marriages to his wives; the women aren’t married to each other. She kept interrupting him so he couldn’t describe his meaning very bluntly.
Do we "pick" what Joseph and Hyrum actually said and did, or do we "pick" what their enemies accused, or bad late recollections decades after Joseph's death alleged?
Anyone who believes this lady is being misled.
Michelle says "I would invite people to tell me what abomination does God sometimes command, that He only sometimes wants for His own purposes". Greg mentions the abomination of the murder of Laban that God commanded and she glossed right over it saying "So we need to murder the hearts of our wives and children"? What? Sorry Michelle but since you didn't seem to catch it when Greg said it, I want to highlight it again here: Besides polygamy, MURDER is also an "abomination" that God sometimes commands for His own purposes! So now you can stop saying that "God would never command an abomination".
These three verses should end the debate. Although the question posed is about divorce, Jesus’s answer is very telling. He reaffirms that the pattern from the beginning has not changed, one man and one women, leaving their father and mother and cleaving to each other. He rebukes them for resting the scriptures, which means no deviation from this was ever condoned or commanded by God. This is again confirmed in the Book of Mormon multiple times and in D&C 42. How many witnesses do we need?
Matthew 19:4-6
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
And, we have zero scriptural accounts of God actually commanding polygamy. In Jacob God says he suffered and the women and children suffered. 132 is so filled with statements counter to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have only a suspect copy written in the hand of a suspect person. God is hearing the cries of us women--can the brethren open their ears? And bring it before the Lord as they did the Priesthood ban?
For what purpose? So sealings to second wives will cease? To make you feel better about history? Because it is not just the modern church history. Go listen to David Alexanders testimony. He had a problem with poligamy until the lord gave him his testimony, he even stated that he would have loved to have lived in that time, if i remember correctly. I also have a testimony of it. I think i know why this is an issue and i belive many will leave the church over it.
@@avoice423 The purpose would be for prophets, seers, and revelators to inquire with the Lord whether the latter portions of D&C 132 contain true doctrine, considering the pain it causes so many members of the church. It is similar to the priesthood ban, many leaders believed and taught false doctrine until there was enough pressure to reconsider the narrative. This is a top reason that people leave and I know many that have studied it out and prayed for comfort or confirmation of its truthfulness but feel nothing but darkness. I’ve conversed with David Alexander a number of times, he’s not the angel that so many paint him out to be. If you want to better understand why this issue is so damaging for so many, I’d encourage you to read The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy.
@@avoice423 I’d love to hear more about your testimony of polygamy and how you’ve obtained it. I’ve studied this topic for years and 1000’s of hours and the more I’ve learned the more I know it’s not from God, despite trying to understand it and make peace with it.
@@Commenter2121 why do you want to know? It seems you have already made your mind up. Go listen to David Alexanders testimony. The Lord is not going go interfere with your agency. I think the key to gaining the testimony is to be willing to except and live it if the Lord so chooses. My personal testimony is private between me and the Lord. He began telling me things over 14 years ago. It is not new to me. I am concerened many will leave the church over this issue.
thank you for such a candid, real, raw exchange. I thank both of you!!!! I love the temple and feel such great feelings there! I ask God's blessings on both of you!
I appreciate Greg’s channel but this interview shows that he is out of his depth on this topic. Some of his arguments were ridiculous and others were harder to explain away, he essentially just repeated the Jacob Hansen talking points. Michelle has shown a superior depth of knowledge in the scriptures and church history compared to Greg on this issue. People may come to different conclusions than her but she has done her homework.
This is always the response from someone who disagrees with my point of view. Shocking!
@@CwicShow You yourself admit that you have not studied this out. I have and so has Michelle and I’m saying it was clear from watching you two converse that she is far more knowledgeable on this topic. No need to get offended, you admit it hasn’t been your expertise. You may not want to form set conclusions until you go deeper.
@@Commenter2121I would pit the knowledge of Brian Hales and Don Bradley against hers, all day, every day. Oh, and they aren’t apostates trying to denounce our current and former prophets.
@@istj509 That’s fine. Michelle has had Brian Hales on her podcast and Don Bradley has been on multiple times. They all know the sources and the material very well and Michelle holds her own. I’ve found that those who study this topic in depth generally know much more about church history and the scriptures than your average member does.
@@Commenter2121 and you’re not going to address what I said about her denouncing current and former prophets?
I have enjoyed this episode and appreciated that you treated each other with respect. I am familiar with much of Michelles's well researched work and believe that she is indeed seeking to find truth.
Im trying to understand why Michelle Stone hasn't joined the Community of Christ
Interestingly, for years the Community of Christ rejected the idea that Joseph was married to multiple wives. They have since accepted that he probably did, even though he, Emma and the leaders of church from testified from the pulpit that there was a doctrine that taught polygamy.
She's got to fix The Church, she said, is why she stays in The Church.
Probably because Community of Christ is a leftist organization that has left the belief of Joseph and the Book of Mormon behind.
I don't think the Community of Christ church has authority to officiate in the saving ordinances we receive in the temple. That is paramount above all else.
She has the courage to stay with our church even though there are tares among the wheat.
Greg, I love the episodes where you dig into politics; however, this was painful. Michelle Stone is an expert on this topic. She knows the scriptures, history, and every other detail about this crazy topic. Any other expert would present the information as if they were the expert and not be challenged by someone who doesn't have her knowledge. While it's a huge time commitment, I think it would be helpful for you to watch all her episodes, look at the references, and then ask the questions. BTW, polygamy has wrecked havoc among many men in the way Michelle described. You're fortunate to now know any of them.
Over where I live we're surrounded by them. It's so potent that the practice of it is frequently brought up. People believe it is coming back and if it is coming back (be it from God or not) we better find out for ourselves so we can defend the truth. Seeing what I've seen and knowing what I know, the Book of Mormon is right. It is a whoredom and abomination!
The Church not addressing the polygamy narrative bolsters all those still practicing it and all the abuses. Now that I have spent the time to review all put forward by Brian Hales, the Church's leading experts, Don Bradley, and others on his side--And all Michelle's work along with Whitney Horning and Jeremy Hoop--and studied every scripture relating--it is difficult to understand how it is we cannot dispose of this once and for all! Stop the bleeding... Stop the cries of the women and children--and men.
Yes Greg is not familiar enough with the crazy amount of details on the subject. Unfortunately, that was exposed with bad reasoning and arguments and ignorant challenges.
But we are so grateful that he did have Michelle on! Others choose not to have her on their platforms because they know she knows her stuff. They would rather just talk about her instead, Jacob Hanson.
You, the commenters agreeing with you and absolutely Michelle does not understand her scriptures. Or should I say... will not understand them. Righteous plural marriage has never been a sin as is proven by the scriptures.
Michelle seems to be pretty genuine. I understand that she wants to find truth, and not hurt people’s faith.
But at the same time, it’s a flag for me that she won’t state what she thinks because it’ll hurt people’s feelings, like if she thought the “Utah Mormons” killed Joseph. Just say what you think. We all want to be truth seekers until we’re asked is it true, then people like Michelle throw a word salad at people. And she never acknowledged that she was cherry picking information. Her whole premise starts with character assassinating the members who went over with Brigham, and implying that Joseph was a Saint. Then all of her arguments are valid because what comes from Utah can’t be trusted.
59:15 Weakest argument I've ever heard you make. Marrying multiple wives is ok because the actual ordinance is only with one of them at a time? Wow.
That’s not the argument I made. In fact, you’re falling into the exact trap that I brought up in the episode.
@@CwicShowcan you explain your argument then because this is the same understanding of what you said that many walked away from your video with.
Ya, this argument falls flat because marrying another woman breaks the covenant with the first anyway.
@@CwicShowyou’re just not being honest. You are trying to trap someone using words but the context is horribly misrepresented. What did God mean when he told Adam to cleave to Eve and become one flesh? What does it mean in D&C 42 when we are told to cleave into your spouse and NONE ELSE. What does it mean when the scriptures tell us God speaks plainly? No mental gymnastics or ‘carefully worded denials’ like you just made are of God. Knock it off if you want to be taken seriously.
Agreed! This was ludicrous. Go read the words of your Savior, he who looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart.... Except for when it's one woman at a time. Because he can only lust after one woman at a time regardless of the covenant contracts he has made with his wife.... Right? Smack my face. Yeah the family and marriage are literally at stake. Bizarre!
Michelle is awesome. I’m grateful for all her hard work. We should not lay polygamy at Joseph’s feet- especially when he himself publicly denounced the practice.
It’s actually really cut and dry. Joseph was either a liar, a lethario and a pedophile… or he was telling the truth, and was not a polygamist.
Polygamy is an abomination. Similar to other abominations BY introduced (like blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, Adam God, etc)
In order to believe the LDS narrative, you have to believe that God commanded his prophet, a married man, to go behind his wife's back and marry teenage girls, and then lie publicly about it. Is that the kind of prophet you want to believe in? Is that the kind of God you want to believe in?
You also have to believe God has set up a caste system for women, according to D& C 132. That some of us women are destined to become concubines! Seriously, read 132, it is that ridiculous, as it calls itself, the doctrine of many wives and concubines! So interesting that Christ never taught of this method of kingdom building...
@BridgeBuilder-x4c there are SOmany problems with D&C 132! Anyone with the tiniest bit of knowledge of Jesus Christ's teachings and a drop of discernment can see that 132 is a fraud. I am embarrassed that our church leaders have propped up this false doctrine for so long.
@@hhsisters5508 Thats not the true story. Read History if the Saints. If you disagree with Gods prophets of His Church, thats too bad. and very sad
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c "Bridge Builder" is your name? More like Bridge destroyer. Not sure how your comments are building any bridges here.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c He actually did. There to become a high priest in Ancient Israel, would be highly unusual without living plural marriage. Christ being perfect had to obey every law. Do tje worls of Anraham. Chances are very high that He (Christ) lived/lives that law. Again, Search deep enough and be humble enough to accept the truth. This is one of tje main reasons people left the church and killed Joseph in tje Nauvoo days. Dont make the same mistake. Doesnt wnd well for those who reject Gods prophets.
My heart is sad as I read through the comments here. As brothers and sisters can we feel the love of our Savior for one another? Can we pray for each other to find truth?
Knowing whether or not God commands His children to live polygamy is very important because it is a direct reflection of the character and nature of our God.
I believe that He is a God of love and He cares very deeply about the feelings of His children. Through much research and learning, I can now see in the scriptures and through sources of church history (Joseph Smith Papers) that polygamy is not a commandment from God and never has been! When I asked the Lord if Joseph practiced polygamy, I received a beautiful dream where He showed me that Joseph did not practice polygamy and he only loved Emma.
I believe that the research and online sharing Michelle and others are doing is literally a manifestation of scripture that the truth is being shouted from the rooftops! The fruit of this truth is so beautiful! I am grateful for a loving God that cares deeply about the tender hearts of his daughters. 💕
If we won’t soften our hearts and open our eyes to the possibility of another narrative than this “false tradition of men” that we have been taught about polygamy, we will end up fulfilling the prophecies in the Book of Mormon that were given for us!
Please don’t trust in the arm of flesh (as we are warned of in the Book of Mormon) to tell you what is true. Ask the Lord! This is my prayer for you all 🙏
Yes! Take it in prayer to THE source of truth!
Anyone that argues that Joseph didn't practice polygamy has to also argue that Joseph recieved false revelations and was likely decieved by Satan to ordain wicked men to be his quorum of apostles and lead the church who conspired to lie about polygamy and abuse women. You are basically shooting yourself in the foot and destroying Joseph's prophetic powers.
@@justinbosley692 But we don’t have to believe he was a liar and adulterer, and Brigham was above reproach.
Unlike all of the general authorities and the vast majority of the church, I choose to believe Joseph, Hyrum and Emma.
If, in the end, I’m wrong about their integrity? Well…then I have much bigger problems to wrestle than Joseph’s marital status.
@@brijsmi072 So, you'd rather believe that Joseph recieved revelation from Satan than that he lied because he was afraid for his life.
@@justinbosley692 No. All of Joseph’s revelations on polygamy were against it’s practice…repeatedly calling it an abomination, in keeping with scripture.
Joseph, very obviously, didn’t write 132. A ten year old could compare the writing in 132 to ANYTHING Joseph took down and see it’s worlds apart in difference.
Repeatedly…over and over again… in private record AND in public utterances, he adamantly eschewed polygamy and threatened its proponents and practitioners with disciplinary measures.
She is right. Joseph Smith was only married to Emma. In a copy of the Book of Mormon, he wrote "One Wife" in the margin. In History of The Church published by Deseret Book on behalf of the church in 1980, Joseph has his scribe write down to hold those accountable that teach, preach or practice polygamy. So she is right that Joseph Smith was NOT a polygamist. The sealings to women were NOT marriages, but Law of Adoption sealings that has nothing to do with marriage, but rather being sealed to Priesthood leaders as a church family. Wilford Woodruff changed this is 1894 to be sealings to father's rather than Priesthood leaders.
So Joseph Smith was NOT a polygamist at all!
Wow. So many thoughts and comments that I'd like to express. She's interesting and frustrating at the same time. At 1:10:39, is it just me, or does it seem like she was waiting for that moment when Greg opens the door by saying she's making an "emotional argument"? She was waiting to play that trump card... God cherishes the tender feelings of women, so how dare you say my argument is emotional?! Silly man, you don't know anything about emotions! I agree with Greg, I've never once known any man that thinks it would be great to have plural wives. My saying to my wife of 36 years is, "You are the perfect wife for me". This guest absolutely was saying men practiced polygamy simply to satisfy lust. When Greg called her on it she deflected and claimed she was just quoting Orson Pratt. She makes anecdotal claims that she has discoursed with many men that would like plural marriage. In reality this would still represent a minute fraction of all the men in the LDS Church.
She continually refers to her "community", and shed a little light on what that community believes:
1)Joseph and Hyrum fought against polygamy.
2)Brigham pushed for polygamy against Joseph's wishes, and may have had a hand in he and Hyrum's murders.
3)Her community doesn't believe in the Temples(attending and worshipping in).
This sounds like a community that is walking close to the edge of apostasy.
One last thought... At the end, she shared that she had a powerful witness from the Holy Ghost while in the Temple at the end of the "lockdown", but it sounded like that was the last time she was there, and that many in her "community" were not happy about her going.
My sincere question for her, what does that say about your community? You tell them that you had this beautiful experience in the Holy Temple, and that you know the Lord's Spirit is there, and your "community" disapproves?!
Time to question your choice of community/friends.
The hypocrisy of wondering how it’s possible for Joseph F Smith to have lied, while at the same time accusing the Prophet Joseph Smith of having lied about his polygamy.
I too came from polygamous heritage and for the majority of my life believed the LDS church narrative, until I did a more thorough search and pondering of the subject. Rather than the label imposed by Greg and others as "polygamy deniers"; I'd rather, if a label must be used, be known as a "truth seeker." That being said, polygamy and Joseph Smith's involvement is a controversial and contentious topic for a lot of people, and has been the source of many falling away from the church. It seems useless trying to debate the topic using the many statements made by people that contradict each other, so I'll use the source material of D&C 132 to point out issues with polygamy. Section 132 is the only place in the scriptures that states plural marriage comes from the Lord; there are no other scriptures in the standard works that explicitly state that the Lord commanded righteous men to take another wife; although there have been times when polygamy has been sanctioned by God.
Joseph was a student of the Bible and I believe he understood it better than almost anyone. He even did a massive translation of it, known as the JST, and he had the spirit of revelation, so it’s more likely that other men not as acquainted with the scriptures would have made the errors that are apparent in the very first verse and other verses in D&C 132:
1) There is no scriptural support for Isaac marrying more thad to one wife.
2) Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman while living in Egypt (Numbers 12:1) and after he fled Egypt he married Zipporah and no one else is mentioned in the scriptures. In another book, I read that the Ethiopian marriage was part of a political alliance between the two countries. What happened to the marriage after he fled is unknown. The Lord did not condemn Moses, and in fact when Aaron and Miriam ridiculed Moses for the marriage, the Lord declared Moses as “faithful in all mine house,” and “the anger of the Lord was kindled against them.” It is false when in 132:38 it mentions that Moses, along with David and Solomon “received many wives and concubines.
3) David was NOT justified in all his marriages. Some were permitted, and many of his marriages were done as part of political alliances. In D&C 132:39 it only mentions Uriah’s wife Bathsheba as the only wife where David committed sin. However, in JST 1 Kings 11:6 it states in reference to the many wives David and Solomon had and how it led to their downfall: “And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, as David his father, and went not fully after the Lord.”
4) Solomon was also NOT justified in all 700 wives and 300 concubines who some eventually “turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, and it became as the heart of David his father.” It also says that because Solomon did not keep God’s covenants and statutes, that God would rend the kingdom during the reign of Solomon’s son. (1Kings 11: 3-4, 9-12)
5) Again in verse 38 it also says that “many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time” received “many wives and concubines,” “…and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.” This is false statement that cannot be backed up with scriptures. I did a search to find all the polygamous marriages in the Old Testament, and besides Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, it only mentions five other men who had more than one living wife: (1) Esau - Genesis 26:34; 2) Gideon - Judges 8:30; (3) Elkanah the father of Samuel - 1 Samuel 1:2; (4) Rehoboam, Solomon’s son - 2 Chronicles 11:21; (5) King Abijah - 2 Chronicles 13:21. There were none in the New Testament, and the mention in any of the other standard works of multiple marriages are of men who were unrighteous and these polygamous practices were often associated with societal and spiritual decline. (King Noah and his wicked priests - Mosiah 11; Riplakish - Ether 10:5; Lamech, a descendant of Cain, Adah - Moses 5:44).
As I have studied section 132, it is apparent that all of it was NOT a revelation from Joseph; however, I’m not discounting that some of it may have been a revelation from him. Having the document conveniently locked in Brigham's desk draw and not revealing it until 1852 would have given ample time to make changes or additions. Much of it does not match the other revelations of Joseph Smith, indicating that parts were added to it by others. For example, there are 12 verses that "damn, destroy, or curse" people and 8 of them invoke the name of God (vs. 4, 6, 14, 26, 27, 41, 46, 52, 54, 57, 63 & 64). In a writing analysis that was conducted, this is more consistent with Brigham's writing and speaking style.
Lastly, if the principle of celestial marriage (aka plural marriage in the eternities) is essential to exaltation, why is there no mention of it in any other scriptures besides D&C 132? Why did the Savior not speak of it as a principle of exaltation in the New Testament or Book of Mormon while he was teaching the people in the Americas? And, even though Brigham made it a part of the temple endowment during his tenure, why is there nothing mentioned about it in the modern-day temple endowment?
Excellent points.
God does not change. He commanded us not to lie. He said it was an abomination to Him, yet Young, Taylor and others were to "lie for the Lord"? (Like God would need someone to lie for Him? He's omnipotent etc.). God teaches over and over that man should have one wife and no concubines, yet for Brigham, He suddenly changes? He admonished the prophets who took multiple wives. Notice the scriptures NEVER say He GAVE them multiple wives. Read The Hebrew Bible also. Joseph was not a liar. He was monogamous. The church needs to tell the truth. Polygamy didn't build the church, it almost destroyed it.
Why did Abraham and Nephi lie then?
@@oshemer5066 Abraham and Nephi did not lie . Why do you think they lied?
I love Michelle Stone. She has helped me find peace with how I felt God viewed me as a woman for the majority of my life. I actually feel like Heavenly Father loves me now instead of feeling like an object. Thank you Michelle for the hours upon hours of research you have done.
@@brianbrown2237 Michelle is your counselor?
Words are inadequate to describe the first time I read 132 as a seminary student. It was soul crushing. I had a natural love for Heavenly Father and Jesus, and a budding passion for their words in scripture. I tried to understand what I clearly see as verbal nonsense in 132. Ask an English teacher to read this! I found some false doctrines in it, but no one ever wants to talk about it. So 132 had great dissonance for me. It was Elder Bednars talks on the teacher is no better than the student, and President Nelson's admonishment to "hear Him" where I finally felt free to trust my heart, mind, and soul that polygamy is an abomination! I appreciate the work that both sides of the polygamy discussion have done. Now it is time for Brian Hales and other historians to get caught up on the topic. I am not all about changing the Church. But my family knows that I believe Joseph, I believe the Lord and the words he gave to Jacob--that polygamy is an abomination. What has happened to Jacobs talk condemning polygamy: it gets wrested, chopped in pieces, verses pulled out to support what D & C literally calls, the Doctrine of Multiple Wives and Concubines! Funny how no one wants to talk about who gets to be the concubines--a Heavenly caste system! My testimony of my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have grown by leaps and bounds. I have greater love for my husband. I am now able to fully trust my heart with God. That childhood love for the Lord has been restored! Thank you Michelle!
I feel the same!! I feel like Jesus loves me.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c I relate! So much healing and clarity
Amen! I share the same sentiment and similar experience. And the truth will set you free!
Abram called himself evil. After his wrestle with God he repents and receives a New Name. Abraham, as a new creature, never committed polygamy. This story follows the Pattern of Ascension through the three part space, ending in the reception of All the Father Has.
Same with Jacob/Israel
They stayed in polygamist relationships even after the name change.
@@zissler1Because obviously God wants men to abandon their wives and children right!?! Sometimes we have to live with the consequences of our choices, even after repentance that is made public in the scriptures.
@@DerekPayne1791 D&C 132:65 says God commanded Abraham to take Hagar as his wife. So in light of the words of Joseph, you're mistaken.
@@zissler1 Hmm so kick the women and children to the curb?
Ya know, I can’t say one way or the other. But I believe Joseph Smith to be a man of character, the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and Jesus is the Christ. I’m sure we’ll find out about all of the secrets during the millennium.
Thanks for the conversation. I appreciate your good questions... and your and Michelle's respectful manners. Please do some more. I appreciate Michelle's ability to articulate such substantive responses and her encyclopedic knowledge gained by her incomparable research. I would encourage everyone to honestly consider the findings and evidences she, Jeremy Hoop, Rob Fotheringham and others are faithfully bringing to light. A mountain of issues. Let's just find the truth... And love, honor and obey our merciful Father and his Son.
Whitney Horning also wrote to great books and the Prices as well. There is a lot of scholarship and how is it that historians are so disinterested in all the documents that have come to light, with the publishing of the Joseph Smith Papers? Why is the Church inviting people to write books? Much of this information had not been available. Now it is. What is the threat? The truth will prevail unless we censor and threaten people with excommunication if they discover documents that go counter to the Church Historians preconceived narrative...
Michelle, not Brian Hales, is the leading expert of the polygamy evidence. She has the most honest approach to interpreting the historical evidence. I am glad that Don Bradley now has also changed his mind to recognise Jacob 2:30 is NOT a polygamy loop hole, and hopefully those responsible for the church seminary et al publications stop including this scripture when discussion “at times god has commanded his people to practice polygamy”. Use D&C 132, but please don’t wrest the BOM.
Don is a reasonable guy. He is willing to concede things when presented with evidence.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c I agree. Don is a honest player in this.
However Don Bradley concluded that he did practice it. But that it was out of obligation not lust, or opportunism.
@@avoice423 yes, honest people can still come to the wrong conclusion.
Greg's argument that a polygamous marriage is a marriage between one man and one woman was completely unintelligible. I've never heard anyone make that claim. The very prefix of polygamy literally means more than one.
It’s not an argument. It’s the way they did it. It’s plural marriages.
Right. Plural
@CwicShow these people are dense. You are correct.
@@CwicShow Polygamy was also illegal in the city of Nauvoo and State of Illinois. Joseph prosecuted everyone and anyone found guilty of polygamy. We lost the Temple Lot Case. No credible witnesses. No proof. The affidavits were thrown out and laughable by the judge. why do we never hear about that? If Eve was deceived, and you admit the mother of all living was, don't you think Brigham could have been?
As Jacob says, they understand not the scriptures (proclamation) and seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms (or excuse/justify others). Mind blowing! I also laughed out loud.
We should really, really, consider exactly why, Emma stayed away from the church once Brigham took over. She wasn't wrong.
We could also ask why did Mary Fielding, Hyrum’s widow, go with Brigham Young and the church?
She did not want her children to be groomed into polygamy. I don't either. All my children and grandchildren know that polygamy is an abomination. Not everyone bought into the false doctrines that lead to slavery in Utah. I can hold my own conviction to believe the Lord, that polygamy is an abomination.
@@BridgeBuilder-x4c I’m not sure about that. Joseph F Smith practiced plural marriage, and Hyrum stated that Mary Fielding sat in as proxy for his first wife’s (Jerusha) sealing to him.
@@oshemer5066 Not sure I get what you are saying. Emma did not want her children to become polygamists and that is what Brigham was practicing before they left Nauvoo. This was a big rift as well as other things. Yes, Hyrum was sealed to one woman for eternity, his first wife after her death. Mary went west with the Saints where she was left to live in horrible poverty. Mary died when Joseph F. Smith was young. Watch Michelles episode on this.
"polygamy denial"? I think you mean "believing Joseph" and "affirming monogamy" or denying abominations and whoredoms (thus said the Lord)
“And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, as David his father, and went not fully after the Lord.” (Old Testament” | JST 1 Kings 11:4-6)!
So like David ended up doing as well... just what was the evil(s) Solomon was doing?? In David's case, we already know the sin wasn't having many wives. It was what he was doing with and to those wives AND... lusting other men's wives. Murder Too.
So again... what whoredoms were they doing?? How about sleeping with more than one wife at a time, would that be a whoredom and defilement of chastity? How about they were also indulging and allowing or forcing women to sleep with each other, would that be a whoredom?? What about not treating all wives equally and breaking their hearts, would that be a abomination in the eyes of God??
You have just learned the difference between righteous plural marriage and not.
Having interacted with her online, I get a bad feeling from her. I’m surprised to learn just how many members were spurred to research church doctrine and history at the beginning of the pandemic like I was. I knew plural marriage was a thorny issue and have since seen friends and family either leave the church or stay in as activists.
Just because you’ve researched a topic and even claim to have first believed in plural marriage as Michelle does, it doesn’t mean you’ve reached the right conclusions.
Scrutinize her research methodology. Evaluate her analysis. If it leads her and others to reject the prophets, it’s the wrong conclusion.
That is the definition of looking at a topic with a bias.
The spirit leaves when she opens her mouth. It happens every time I start watching her videos. I have all the answers I need. My faith is in God, not Michelle Stone.
@@4rcgoodwin when you’re seeking further light and knowledge from God the Father, you will be biased against sophistry, yes.
Rejecting the prophets, huh?
When Hyrum Smith, who had been appointed Prophet, Seer, and Revelator by the time, declared in general conference, only around 3 months before his death, with "the power of God," that "it is lawful for a man to marry a wife, but it is unlawful to have more, and God has not commanded any of you to have more," was he wrong, or right?
@@rowleskids hmm, let’s ask his plural wives Mary and Mercy Fielding, Catherine Phillips, Louisa Sanger, and Lydia Granger.
The answer is that John C. Bennett was committing adultery in the name of plural marriage which Joseph and Hyrum rightfully disavowed. They accepted and practiced authorized plural marriage.
To rephrase @cwicshow pinned comment: Oh no, our church is in trouble. The book of Mormon teachings are seeping into our church. The meaning of being faithful to your wife will change forever!
I am 26 minutes into this podcast and two things stand out like a sore thumb: first, Ms. Stone forces many, many ambiguous sources and evidences to support her main proposition: Joseph Smith, good (and never bought in to the practice of polygamy) and other leaders bad. If the issue is whether polygamy is a true, doctrinally based practice, why the need to save Joseph from the rest of the bad actors except out of a naïve need to protect her view of the world and testimony. Joseph Smith just as easily could be lumped in with the rest of the bad actors and polygamy could still be, a false principle. To me, this suggests that Ms. Stone is not intellectually honest and is subconsciously motivated by a narrative she is trying to make fit.
The second thing I noticed is that Ms. Stone very knowingly and intentionally stops short of criticizing modern day prophets such as President Nelson and President Oaks. The logical extension of what she preaches condemns these brethren, but she seeks to protect her church membership. If she were seeking truth earnestly, she would follow it wherever it leads. To “cancel“ 4-5 early prophets and presidents of the church (but not Joseph Smith), but shy away from canceling modern prophets again shows a certain naïveté. Selective cancellation of prophets will not preserve her membership.
Loved your comment! Michelle hesitates to call the early Church leaders "liars" but has no problem referring to them as "lustful and power-hungry". She accuses them of the heinous abomination of committing whoredoms but protects them from being viewed as "liars"??? - even though she clearly says they all lied about Joseph Smith's polygamy and D&C 132! Pretty funny stuff. For some reason she just can't bring herself to throw the prophets all under the bus completely! Her position is ridiculous.
We're taught that eternal marriage is prerequisite to having the power of creation in the eternities. We're also taught we are to be one flesh with our spouse, and no other. To me, one flesh means achieving complete unity of heart, mind, body and soul as our heavenly parents have done. I believe such unity is necessary to unlock the power of creation in eternal marriage.
We learn in Genesis that the very image of God is both the male and the female together. Neither the male nor the female can create without the other, and without creation, there is no God. To me, that means God is a celestial couple who have achieved complete unity to have the power of creation. I believe it's impossible to achieve the necessary unity with more than one spouse. Whether God makes it possible for some, I don't know, but I doubt it. So far as we know, we only have one Heavenly Mother.
@dalecash2336. Beautiful conclusion. Thank you
Yes, also nowhere does it say Adam had multiple wives yet he had the fullness of the gospel.
Yes, and if Eve, the mother of all living was deceived by Satan, then we should expect Brigham was too!
What does that even mean any way, to be one? One in purpose? One in mind? One in harmony? All of those are possible with complete harmony and love with one or three. Undenyably possible with exalted beings.
@@avoice423 One glance at the journals of polygamous wives shows there was anything but unity in their marriages. These women were largely treated very poorly, more like property than loving companions.
Would it be possible for exalted beings to have such unity with more than one? Perhaps. For those who are not exalted beings, probably not so much. Based on the lived experience of those who lived it, I'd say definitely not. Achieving such unity is required to become exalted in the first place. So you have a chicken or the egg problem. It's impossible to achieve the capacity for perfect unity without already being in perfect unity to begin with.
And of course, there's the fact that outside of section 132, scriptural support for polygamy falls apart very quickly.
I can't remember how i know her but it may be through homeschool. Lived almost half my life in Lehi so if she's from that area i could've met her then.
I did have a polygamist man take me to lunch to meet his wife and three kids and i really was so naive i had no idea what was going on until he asked me if i would join his family. He said his kids and wife had agreed to it already.
His wife just looked at me. She seemed so sad and just.... Accepting? Like she was just accepting it as a real thing she'd make herself learn to live with or something.
I thought for sure she'd get upset at her husband or me or that she'd laugh off the "joke", but when i realized they were so serious and that the three little kids looked so hopeful and excited about me being in their family i froze.
I told him i didn't know because, well, i froze in complete shock.
He apologized and we all left our separate ways.
Later i overheard him talking about me and my body with his co-worker and was shocked and flat out disgusted.
My old boyfriend was working there on a different project and yelled at him and threatened him to never talk like that about me again. He got mad at me for not standing up for myself. He was right. I should have. But like i said i was just in shock and dumbfounded and really embarrassed.
I was his boss's boss, too, so it was serious.
So very sad. And it is the false narrative that bolsters the practice and suffering of polygamists today. They deserve our compassion and help.
Thanks for having Michelle on. There is truth in her words.
The Lord Himself is the best source.
D&C 84:54-58.. the church has been and remains under condemnation for not following the precepts of the BoM….Polygamy is clearly denounced in the BoM.
3 Nephi 16:10
The Lord Himself stated that the Gentiles (the only group to claim the fullness in the latter days is the LDS) would depart. He stated not if but WHEN.
D&C 124: 48,50
The Lord has cursed the church to the 4th generation for its abominations. We are now in that 4th generation and the Lord is lifting the curse and people are waking up to their awful situation. The waking up process is hard and many are leaving the church.
For those who discount this message. The BoM also warns against those who state all is well in Zion
Since when do we think we are immune to pride cycles? Since when would we think we never need correction? It does not make the Church not Christs! Perhaps it is even evidence we are Christs! That He loves us enough to correct us. It was the Lords inspired constitution that ended slavery and polygamy. Thank the Lord--lets just clean up the messy remainders.....
Joseph F. Smith - “It is a righteous principle not an unrighteous one. It is a pure and holy principle; and, therefore, persons, either male or female, who have not the desire in their hearts to become pure and righteous, have no business to practice it, for it cannot be practiced acceptably before God on any other principle than that of purity and righteousness, therefore no wicked unjust or impure person can enter into the law of celestial or plural marriage without incurring the displeasure of the Almighty and his own condemnation before the Lord, unless he speedily repent of all his impure motives and designs. A man that is not honest in his heart, who does not desire to be just and impartial, even as God is just and impartial, has no business in plural marriage; and before he enters into the practice of that principle he needs to repent, to learn wisdom, to get the Spirit of God, to get understanding in relation to the purpose God has in view in regard to this principle; that he may go into the practice of it understandingly, that his heart and mind may be set upon practicing it in righteousness.
Sometimes it is the fault of the man, sometimes of the woman, and oftener of both, but never the fault of the principle. The principle is correct, great, ennobling and calculated to bring joy, satisfaction and peace, if we would but observe and practice it as we should. But in order to do this we must get wisdom and understanding.
Joseph F. Smith (Plural Marriage-For the Righteous Only-Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting)
Good interview. D&C 132 "I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines..." Do we seriously believe the Lord ever justifies concubines (sex slaves)? Think about that single issue and then ask yourself: seriously, the Lord says it is JUSTIFIED to have sex slaves?
Great job Michelle. I invite all true seekers after more truth and light to watch the videos of Michelle, Gwendlyn, Rob, Jeremy, and Whitney.
Thank you, Greg, for hosting this wonderful woman.
There is no doubt that, like portions of the Bible, (namely the Deuteronomists) D&C 132 was tampered with. And this is the perfect example. This is also why scribes (historians) are listed as hypocrites by Jesus. Our own historians have engaged in malpractice, whether intentionally or ignorantly. In section 25 Emma is an "elect lady", but by section 132, she is threatened with destruction seven times. Does that make sense?
A concubine is not a sex slave, but a wife of lower status
AMEN!
@@avoice423 NOT SO. But even if it was so, then 132 teaches of a caste system for women in Heaven. 132 is filled with false teachings. Time to actually read it and apply Alma 32
As Greg said, he finds it DIStasteful, and not "SWEET" and DELICIOUS"
Webster defines a concubine: a woman with whom a man cohabits without being married: such as one having a recognized social status in a household below that of a wife
or mistress. Oxford dictionary: ... (in polygamous societies) a woman who lives with a man but has lower status than his wife or wives. A mistress. King's College: a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress. (among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.
Even if we disregard the historical definition of a concubine--which would be historical malpractice--we would have to define what is a "wife of lower status." Obviously, a concubine is not a wife of higher status. How many lower status categories could there be?
Do we seriously think our Savior would ever establish a system in His Plan of Salvation for hundreds of thousands of His daughters to be consigned to be a "wife" of, 2nd, 3rd, 4th class as a member of a concubine? No, sex slave quite aptly describes a woman who is in a concubine.
Eventually the LDS church leaders will disavow Brigham's polygamy doctrine, just as they have done with Adam-God, blood atonement, and the blacks holding the priesthood.
1HR 2MIN C'mon Greg. The context of D&C101 circa 1835, was CLEARLY addressing the issue of Polygamy and fornication that the church was being charged with. It's laughable, quite frankly, that you think this passage still allows for polygamy.
None of D&C 101 talks about relationships or marriage at all. It was NOT clearly addressing polygamy at all.
@@cameronhoward99it was 101 in previous editions of the D&C, not the current section 101
@@cameronhoward99 It was in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, and remained there until it was taken out in 1878, and section 132 was added - without a vote from the church. Also, the "Doctrine" was what is known now as the Lectures on Faith, which was taken out in about 1921, and we are only left with the "Covenants" with are now known in totality as D&C.
@@cameronhoward99 Well that is because the Church never told all us of these generations that the 1835 version up until 1876 had a renumbered section 101, later 109 revelation that condemned the Church for the CRIME of polygamy. Why is that. and the Church also never told us, but you can read about it in the 1852 Deseret News that reports on the Church conference that was held in late August that year--Brigham Young for the first time presented section 132 8 years after Josephs death. Why was that not taught in my seminary or BYU D&C class? I would totally have investigated that!
Why would I listen to Michelle Stone when there’s a living prophet on the earth right now…..
😂
Agreed 👍 ❤
Said the Zoramites to Alma. Do you believe that John Taylor was wrong when he received a revelation teaching that the church can never abandon polygamy?
It’s simple. EITHER the modern leaders of the church and all past proponents of Joseph’s polygamy were lying…or Joseph, Hyrum and Emma were.
By supporting the current presidency, you are absolutely saying that Joseph was a liar.
There is no room at all for middle ground on this.
Bing! Nailed it!
Greg, I know you are catching heat for having Michelle on. I personally think it was a good choice and these are conversations that we need to have. As JSJr said (in quoting another), by proving contraries,' truth is made manifest,'. If JSJr did practice and teach polygamy, the truth is on your side and there is no need to fear the naysayers. If it isn't of God and JSJr never taught or practiced it, that will eventually be made known. Truth will prevail.
I have come to learn for myself that polygamy is not a godly principle and I find a lot of Michelle's early church research to be quite insightful. I don't agree with her on many things but there are many things I do agree with her on. There is ample evidence on both sides of the argument to support your beliefs (pro- or anti-polygamy) - it really comes down to how much you dig into the original sources, read their journals and the actual words of JSJr rather than what others said he said.
Good comment.
You are sounding kind of bitter and your comment doesn’t make any sense.
@@trainwreck656 if this is to me, keep in mind he edited his comment.
@@CwicShow I did edit it b/c I felt it wasn't warranted. It was mostly in jest but that doesn't come across well in YT comments.
@@duncansh81 Fair enough. I will edit mine as well.
1 man, 1 woman. Its very simple. Just ask her: in these polygamous sealings how many people went to the altar? 2. 1 man and 1 woman.
You have a lot of patience Greg. She is so difficult to listen to let alone try to talk to. Shes all over the place man.
Joseph Smith repeatedly denied he was practicing polygamy. Therefore, if Joseph was a polygamist then he was also a liar. If Joseph was a liar then we can’t trust his testimony or anything that he revealed including the Book of Mormon. I believe Joseph was telling the truth.
Have you ever lied?
Sure, but Abraham lied about Sarah in a difficult circumstance, Isaac lied about Rebekah in a difficult circumstance, even Jesus says to "agree with your enemy" when necessary. It's not a good argument. There are much better arguments on your side than that.
Define polygamy. Now define polygamy as Joseph understood it in the 1830s.
The law given at the beginning "a man should leave his parents [and marry] and become one flesh" you can't become "one flesh" if there is a third party. What of the 1st wife? There is no bonding and becoming one unified front between a man and 2 women, it creates a branch from the union. A branch that universally creates strife. Look at the example of Abraham: the maidservant became proud of her place over Sarah (having had a child over her). Sarah, being envious and disrespected, was reduced to punishment of the handmaid, and their children's line had strife. This all has become a mess of contention and contention is NOT of God.
Why do you disbelieve Joseph Smith's own testimony on the subject? Whose testimony do you hold in higher authority than the Prophet of the Last Dispensation and why?
Michelle is so very well versed! Everything she says makes perfect sense. The explainations and stories I've heard over the years made no sense at all. Now, I believe I understand and am eternally grateful.❤
You are correct. Church essays and BYU proffessors nearly destroyed my faith, but I survived, thanks to personal revelation and the gift of the Holy Ghost!
@@stefanylclark7419 AMen. I started this journey to bolster my daughter’s faith. There is no polygamy loophole in Jacob 2. And the origination of 132 is very sketchy.
People like her is why President Nelson said “One of our greatest challenges today is distinguishing between the truths of God and the counterfeits of Satan. That is why the Lord warned us to “pray always, … that [we] may conquer Satan, and … escape the hands of the servants of Satan that do uphold his work.”
The Power of Spiritual Momentum
Exactly- polygamy is a counterfeit to gods law of monogamy given throughout scripture.
So then you side with the liars that wrote the Nauvoo Expositor and killed Joseph Smith. Or do you believe Joseph was honest. “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one” JS
Amen
When Hyrum Smith, who had been appointed Prophet, Seer, and Revelator by the time, declared in general conference, only around 3 months before his death, with "the power of God," that "it is lawful for a man to marry a wife, but it is unlawful to have more, and God has not commanded any of you to have more," was he wrong, or right?
@@Hmcc0712👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I do not feel the spirit coming from this woman. The comment section on her videos is full angry people.. Her hyper critical content particularly Regarding Brigham Young leads people out of the church. I’ve seen her wright that that is not her intention so it’s not her responsibility because She is just telling the “truth”
Call this spiritual hit and run. All the prog mo’s do it. Totally agree with you. I’ll knock you off your faith by saying some random stuff and if your life falls apart oooops, sorry not my responsibility
You are an exception, Cheryl.
By far, the greatest animosity and rancor stems from those who oppose Sister Stone's clear evidence that Joseph Smith never preached or practiced polygamy.
And many, many more members' testimonies are shaken and challenged by calling the Lord's founding prophet a repeated liar, adulterer, and pursuer of teenage brides behind his wife's back than by believing Joseph spoke the truth when he insisted that he always shunned and condemned polygamy.
When I hear comments like yours that are so dead-set against the idea that the Lord's founding prophet of the Restoration, Joseph Smith, always spoke the simple truth about his stance against Polygamy, I want to ask them these questions (and I am genuinely interested in your responses):
* How do feel about the indisputable fact that Joseph consistently denied ever preaching or practicing polygamy and even excommunicated those who did so?
* Do you believe the same person with the courage to walk in and out of the Sacred Grove and have regular, annual meetings with Moroni and others on the Hill Cumorah, and call the entire world to repent and follow their Savior through the teachings and authority that now resided in him alone--do you really think that same person would tremble at the thought of sharing any other truth the Lord revealed to him, but opt instead to cower and lie?
* Do you believe the Lord would give an important commandment and immediately tell those he commanded to always hide and lie about that commandment--even to his own wife?
* When you read DC 132, do you feel the Spirit of the Lord in the same way as when you read the Book of Mormon? Do you also feel you are eating from the sweet and light-filled fruit of the Tree of Life when you read DC 132?
* Do you ever wonder why, years after Joseph's death, the section that celebrated his statement on the Lord's law of marriage (monogamy) was removed and replaced by DC 132?
* Are you concerned when DC 132 blatantly contradicts the Book of Mormon?
* Do you really think Joseph would ever speak of his dear wife, Emma, as quoted in DC 132? (Compare those words with Joseph's tender expressions of love in his private letters to her.)
* What do you think of the fact that the greatest weapons used against our church by its enemies are the arguments of those who insist Joseph Smith was a secret pursuer of teenage brides?
I prefer to believe that Joseph Smith spoke the truth, loved and honored, and cherished his dear wife, Emma, and had nothing to do with the dark and rancor-filled DC 132.
I'm sorry if these words seem either angry or harsh to you. But I don't understand why they would.
I'm sorry if such statements seem to you opposed to the Lord's Spirit? Can you see why many find the opposite of these statements much more disturbing?
Thanks for the dialogue, Cheryl.
@@jonterry9843 The Scriptures are quite clear about how Joseph could not have been a "philanderer" while practicing plural marriage, which he did. D&C 132:61-62 reads, "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood-if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."
What you define as animosity and rancor is actually righteous indignation that you would lie about both Joseph and Brigham when the evidence is so clear that you're wrong. If you find D&C 132 to be dark and rancor-filled, that's your own perception and personal issues speaking. To borrow a phrase from the scriptures, "see thou to that."
Having studied the doctrine of Celestial Marriage for years myself, I have received a sure and true testimony of it. I have also received a sure and true testimony that it is not the practice of the Church today. This doctrine is exalting and makes Kings of men, when practiced when and as commanded by God. D&C 132 doesn't contradict Jacob in the BoM in any regard, and to claim so is a lie. Those familiar with the presence of the Spirit of God see where the darkness in this debate really is.
@@jonterry9843
….maybe get published. I don’t have time to read your book.
You are straight up lying. She has never said such things
This entire dialogue is a testament to me to be careful who you marry 😂😂😂. That decision will impact SO MUCH for the rest of your life 😂😂😂.
Why do people think “denying” Joseph’s polygamy is somehow apostate? But also think accepting it is not calling Joseph a liar (as he denied it)? Wouldn’t you be calling Joseph a liar? Or could there be more nuance to this?
Both sides are too quick to take a hard stance when both arguments are based on human testimony. And whichever side you fall on, you can still accept the authority of prophets within the stewardship they have received from Christ.
We should be contending against the church of the devil, not among each other.
In Doctrine and Covenants 132 you have conditions given to excommunicate those practicing polygamy.
I'll tell you exactly why.
Its not like any of the history revisionists, while claiming Joseph didn't practice it, afford Brigham the prophetic mantle to institute the practice on his own. This just shows that's its really about the issue itself for them, not so much what they think Joseph did or did not do.
And with that denial comes the claim that Brigham and other prophets not only lied about the origin of plural marriage, but also taught and practiced adultery for decades.
This inevitably leads to two conclusion for the revisionists. Either the priesthood keys somehow remained with Church despite this (a completely inconsistent and untenable position). Or the Church went into apostasy after Joseph's death (which does lead to apostasy).
We have a bunch of spiritually immature members, who can't emotionally handle the issue of plural marriage, and try to find away around it while still feigning loyalty to Joseph and the Restoration. Inevitably they end up cutting the ground out from their own feet.
“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one” JS
@@4rcgoodwin if you are lawfully married to multiple women by God then it isn’t adultery. If someone where to have only one of his wives in the room while the other six where elsewhere then he would only find one in that room.
@@jaredshipp9207 Appreciate the response. Be careful not to paint everyone who is interested in this question with the same broad brush. I would totally afford BY the prophetic mantle to institute polygamy on his own, but that’s not what he claimed to do.
And yes, if JS never practiced polygamy, then BY lied. But if JS did practice polygamy, then HE lied about it. So either way, members have to accept that prophets are human and can lie AND still be prophets. That was the point of my questions.
BY believed, taught, and practiced many things that were wrong (e.g., blood atonement, Adam-god, polygamy (maybe?)). But I believe that he had precisely the kind of personality/constitution that Christ needed to get the saints across the plains. That prophetic mantle didn’t make him flawless by any means. So COULD Christ have allowed BY to institute polygamy without authorization, knowing that He (Christ) could make all necessary corrections later? It’s absolutely possible and not unprecedented at all.
But I’m also open to the idea that Joseph DID practice polygamy AND lied about it AND was still a prophet, flawed as he was (who isn’t?).
I’m interested in the subject because I want to know the truth, whatever it is. But whatever it is, it doesn’t affect my testimony of Christ. Based on what I know of both of these great prophets, I tend to lean towards believing Joseph when he said he didn’t practice polygamy, but it’s not a hard stance. I think both sides offer good evidence. But most importantly, I applaud anyone who honestly pursues truth. If their pursuit leads them away from the church, I would encourage them to keep seeking truth, so the truth will lead them back to the church.
Greg even said it "to bring another individual INTO THAT marriage". at 1:16