Good presentation. Keep it going. One thing to add is the legalistic concept of presumption of innocence. I think the correct way to proceed is to examine each allegation of Smith’s polygamy one by one, and then determine whether that particular evidence supports that Smith was guilty of polygamy beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists, then that piece of evidence or allegation is either diminished or dismissed. If reasonable doubt occurs for all pieces of evidence, then Smith must be found innocent because he is not proven guilty of polygamy beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your content is great! I’ve been studying this for months and you present it all so well. Maybe get in touch with hemlock knots or Michelle stone? You can reach even more people who need to hear this through them!
@coledennis8171 Thank you! I’m not sure if my style would jive well well with Hemlock Knots’ or Michelle Stone’s style, although I like their content. If they asked me to come on though, I probably would. I appeared on the Clairity podcast because she asked: th-cam.com/video/iHQPgAqwelk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-O7cX35ka7I_bwhS
This is brilliant! I can appreciate that historians are trying to piece together a story based on often contradicting sources, but I have not once seen him admit the bias that the Utah Saints were speaking under, this is an incredibly important part of the history. His number one tactic is to present information as fact, even after sometimes admitting how poor sources are, like in the case of Fanny Alger.
@@IBelieveJoseph Have you considered doing a video on Hyrum Smiths wives? My understanding is that there are only two claimed wives besides Jerusha and Mary Fielding, and that the evidence is extremely weak.
Brilliant analysis! Really, all you needed was this quote to show how dumb this article is: “That is, the absence of documented births is not evidence that no such births occurred.” 😂
@phadrus While it’s technically correct, the concept is a bit ludicrous. Just change the topic to see; for example: “The absence of evidence for the existence of Atlantis is not evidence that Atlantis did not exist.”
I'll stick with Hyrum's words that fits the anti-monogamist or polygamist crowd well "any man who comes in and tells any such damn fool doctrine, to tell him to give up his license. None but a fool teaches such stuff; the devil himself is not such a fool" I am sure I would have loved Hyrum.
@FleeingBabylon-Now That’s a great talk! I’ve got a few videos about Hyrum’s opposition to polygamy, and how he’s been ignored (or worse): Is The LDS Church Still Altering History to Support Polygamy? th-cam.com/video/QxVtJvgvHAs/w-d-xo.html
@@IBelieveJoseph It is clear to me anyone and I mean anyone who promotes this doctrine is a fool or worse. That's why I believe Hyrum. I am doing a video on this talk too. I think I have seen your but will check it out. Any one who is a voice for reason and Joseph I admire.
So Brian wrote books full of fictitious stories and is offended when people don't believe him. I'll bet he also believes in fairies and leprechauns. We already know he believes in fire breathing dragons🐉 with flaming swords🤣🤣🤣🤣
@StompMom5 Well, like @dalecash2236 said, other people originally made up the stories. But it’s primarily Brian who weaved them into a new mythos. To quote Hugh Nibley, “[Brian] is not a myth maker, he is a mythographer.”
Brian Hales is getting desperate. This is good news. It is interesting that he tries to get Polygamy deniers to accept the burden of proof. Brian Hales after all is the accuser. What would happen if this ever went to court? It did in 1892 with the Temple Lot Case. The outcome definitely favoured the reputation of Joseph Smith. You asked us to give us a reason we know Joseph was not a Polygamist. Brian Hales skillful use of flawed logic unwittingly convinces me he was not a Polygamist.
I guess I used to think Brian really believed in polygamy but after this I can’t believe he hasn’t deliberately set out to deceive as many as he can knowing full well that Joseph never practiced polygamy. It’s just too contrived… he can’t have created this narrative accidentally
@7dixixiebug I can’t speak to what Brian might believe. To heighten the irony, I framed the video as though he used the tricks deliberately, but it’s possible he didn’t even realize he did it. There is almost no limit to the human capacity for self-deception. Alternately, he may have realized but considered the tricks worth it to make people believe what he’s already decided is the truth.
@definitivamenteno-malo7919 I don’t know who Aaron Ra is, but I doubt that he would talk about this. Most people aren’t aware of it, and it’s not directly related to the Book of Mormon. But if he does talk about it, good.
@definitivamenteno-malo7919 Ah. Well, nobody’s perfect. But from what I’ve seen, ex-and anti-Mormons often seem very emotionally attached to the anti-monogamist theories. I think it gives them a convenient reason to dismiss Joseph Smith completely.
I have a problem, though. Hemlock Knots just made a video about how he thinks that sealings never happened during Joseph's time. If sealings aren't doctrinal, the modern church is insanely wrong about everything. The church falls apart. I don't know. Did William Law also lie about polygamy? I just don't see how this all works.
@Misa_Susaki I think that monogamous marriage dealings did happen. Records show that Hyrum Smith gave at least one talk where he decried polygamy, saying that people were twisting his sealing to his dead wife (with his current wife acting as proxy) into polygamy. He talked quite a bit about marriage sealing. In the context of the time,there’s no reason for that speech to have been invented. It was later suppressed multiple times by the LDS church, so maybe the HK person doesn’t know about it. Here’s one of my videos on it: th-cam.com/video/QxVtJvgvHAs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=vEMM7S4_d5dPbfEx
I understand what you are doing here, however you can flip every argument around and apply it to the anti-polygamy side. If the anti-polygamy was such a slam dunk, then you wouldn't have to make defamatory videos like this. 1. Anti-polygamy proponents (APP) have misrepresented things 2. APP have said if polygamy was practiced it should be written about more 3. APP have said that no open polygamy means no polygamy at all 4. APP have used very dubious sources to support their claim 5. APP have twisted things to support their claim 6. APP have assumed the conclusion first 7. APP have been very flexible with sources 8. APP never give the other side any credit. Full demonization campaign like you are doing now. 9. APP interpret everything to support their claim 10. APP ignore obvious contradictions
You're not necessarily wrong but the goal of the side of the critics is simply to show uncertainty while the polygamy traditionalists plant their flag as being the only rational position one can take and appeal to authority. You own the burden of proof when you argue for complete certainty. It doesn't matter if the critics have their own contradictions to explain.
@@PeterBrownscouts Because neither side can win on the facts alone, they are now slinging mud. The polygamy debate has been going on for at least 50 years now. Nothing new or original is being discovered.
@Telavian I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that the monogamist arguments are airtight, only that the anti-monogamist arguments are insufficient. Of course, I cannot be responsible for what other people may have said. As far your accusation that the monogamist side is guilty of the same things as Brian: I presented specific, documented examples of what one person did, and you responded with vague, undocumented assertions of what an unspecified group of people have done. I am not impressed.
I don't see this as defamatory at all. defamatory - damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libellous. I just don't see it. If someone takes a public position on a matter and you refute that with analysis and facts then how does this fit the term. I also agree with presenter that you are throwing out very vague reasoning with no examples at all. If you took any subject and all who ever spoke about it all your points would apply for at least one presenter or author.
@@IBelieveJoseph Thank you for letting me know that you are not impressed. It really helps move the discussion forward. You are condensing an entire field of study to a few selected quotes and sources. This is so silly. Entire books have been written on the subject on both sides. 1000+ sources to support both arguments. Picking one or two sources to criticized and then acting like you have analyzed the entire argument is so misleading. This is exactly what you have done here. This is a focused analysis, which really is completely meaningless. I am not impressed. This is exactly what you and others have done. I know one very popular anti-polygamy person who criticized Quinn for literally one source he used. She then used that to discredit his entire research. This is so silly, however it is exactly what you are doing here. I am not impressed. Quinn is one of the most researched, and quoted, scholars in Mormonism. He impresses me, however you certainly don't.
I love Joseph Smith... why are our leaders being stupid with the Temple "steeple" in Longview TX? Its causing worldwide negative view of the church. We might as well send all missionaries home for 2 years. The churchs reputation is ruined. Who's running this church? I feel like Joseph Smith was the last real Prophet everyone after him is like ummmm ok i guess! sometimes inspired but makes a lot of mistakes.
Are you aware that D&C 132 was not canonized until 1876, 32 years after Joseph was murdered? Are you further aware of the law of Monogamy that was canonized during Joseph’s lifetime? You can see the original D&C 101 on marriage on the Joseph Smith Papers website.
Once I truly studied section 132 and compared it to Jacob 1-3, I knew that both could not be true and as I have a firm testimony that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, I choose the Book of Mormon which makes it unmistakably clear that multiple wives and concubines are an abomination and not of God. I encourage you to do your own marriage study purely from scripture.
Jacob was named after the polygamist Jacob. Lehi and Sariah really admired a wicked polygamist to name their son after him. The Book of Mormon wouldn't exist without it.
Did you know that John 4 is a Type for Jacob's meeting of Rachel at the well and their subsequent marriage. Jesus is teaching the church passing from Judah to Joseph here, the brides being the two covenant churches.
Not true. If you can explain how it's more important to keep your eye on the Lord and put leaders in their proper role as simply messengers, your faith should increase because it's centered on the Rock and not a man
@@IBelieveJoseph We wouldn't know about Jesus Christ were it not for men. Jesus Christ didn't write a single verse of scripture. I'm pretty sure He expects us to trust His prophets.
@@jerry_phillips Jesus > "Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost." Also Jesus > "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another." Most members like to quote Amos 3:7, or D&C 1:38, but even those verses have greater context and never justify blind faith in men.
Good presentation. Keep it going. One thing to add is the legalistic concept of presumption of innocence. I think the correct way to proceed is to examine each allegation of Smith’s polygamy one by one, and then determine whether that particular evidence supports that Smith was guilty of polygamy beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt exists, then that piece of evidence or allegation is either diminished or dismissed. If reasonable doubt occurs for all pieces of evidence, then Smith must be found innocent because he is not proven guilty of polygamy beyond a reasonable doubt.
@Jjj53214 That’s a great point!
Every episode you produce restores my faith in Christ and the Restoration. This one is brilliant. A slam dunk for Joseph and monogamy. Thank you!
@NanetteOneal Wow! High and humbling praise. Thank you!
Anti-Monogamist Make that the new label.
@hankholiday7792 That’s what I’m hoping for. 😁 I’ll keep using it-hopefully it catches on.
I love it, too. I’m almost done making a new video and I added that in 😉 Thank you!
Your content is great! I’ve been studying this for months and you present it all so well. Maybe get in touch with hemlock knots or Michelle stone? You can reach even more people who need to hear this through them!
@coledennis8171 Thank you! I’m not sure if my style would jive well well with Hemlock Knots’ or Michelle Stone’s style, although I like their content. If they asked me to come on though, I probably would. I appeared on the Clairity podcast because she asked: th-cam.com/video/iHQPgAqwelk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-O7cX35ka7I_bwhS
Love love love this! ❤
I’m glad!
Nice! Congratulations on the 1k subs!❤
Thank you! 😁
Brian undoubtedly started with the conclusion in mind...
Almost certainly.
You seriously ought to consider going to law school. You’d make a great trial lawyer.
@Maryel_R_R_Palmer Wow! I’ll take that as a compliment. 😁
This is brilliant! I can appreciate that historians are trying to piece together a story based on often contradicting sources, but I have not once seen him admit the bias that the Utah Saints were speaking under, this is an incredibly important part of the history. His number one tactic is to present information as fact, even after sometimes admitting how poor sources are, like in the case of Fanny Alger.
Thank you! I agree about presenting his conclusions as facts.
@@IBelieveJoseph Have you considered doing a video on Hyrum Smiths wives? My understanding is that there are only two claimed wives besides Jerusha and Mary Fielding, and that the evidence is extremely weak.
@Commenter2121 I had not considered a video on Hyrum’s alleged wives. I’ll add it to the idea list. Thank you for the suggestion!
@@IBelieveJoseph There are only a few and the evidence for each is extremely bad from what I’ve seen. Shouldn’t be a long video:)
Brilliant analysis! Really, all you needed was this quote to show how dumb this article is: “That is, the absence of documented births is not evidence that no such births occurred.” 😂
@phadrus While it’s technically correct, the concept is a bit ludicrous. Just change the topic to see; for example: “The absence of evidence for the existence of Atlantis is not evidence that Atlantis did not exist.”
Great podcast, I appreciate the way you share your research! 👍♥️
@cherylclute4981 Thank you for saying so!
This is absolutely brilliant! I really appreciate all you and others are doing to get the truth out. I believe Joseph!
@JoySoul73 Why, thank you!
I'll stick with Hyrum's words that fits the anti-monogamist or polygamist crowd well "any man who comes in and tells any such damn fool doctrine, to tell him to give up his license. None but a fool teaches such stuff; the devil himself is not such a fool" I am sure I would have loved Hyrum.
@FleeingBabylon-Now That’s a great talk! I’ve got a few videos about Hyrum’s opposition to polygamy, and how he’s been ignored (or worse): Is The LDS Church Still Altering History to Support Polygamy?
th-cam.com/video/QxVtJvgvHAs/w-d-xo.html
@@IBelieveJoseph It is clear to me anyone and I mean anyone who promotes this doctrine is a fool or worse. That's why I believe Hyrum. I am doing a video on this talk too. I think I have seen your but will check it out. Any one who is a voice for reason and Joseph I admire.
So Brian wrote books full of fictitious stories and is offended when people don't believe him. I'll bet he also believes in fairies and leprechauns.
We already know he believes in fire breathing dragons🐉 with flaming swords🤣🤣🤣🤣
It was interesting when he went on 132 problems and duked it out with Michelle. It was all the same dismissive of any and all contrary evidence.
To be fair, Brian didn't create the fictitious stories. He was just tasked with creating a world where the stories could possibly be true.
@StompMom5 Well, like @dalecash2236 said, other people originally made up the stories. But it’s primarily Brian who weaved them into a new mythos. To quote Hugh Nibley, “[Brian] is not a myth maker, he is a mythographer.”
Brian Hales is getting desperate. This is good news. It is interesting that he tries to get Polygamy deniers to accept the burden of proof. Brian Hales after all is the accuser.
What would happen if this ever went to court? It did in 1892 with the Temple Lot Case. The outcome definitely favoured the reputation of Joseph Smith.
You asked us to give us a reason we know Joseph was not a Polygamist. Brian Hales skillful use of flawed logic unwittingly convinces me he was not a Polygamist.
@ronaldwinfield307 The tricks the anti-monogamists had to pull with their “evidence” was a big red flag for me, too.
You crushed it Bro!!!!
Wow! Thank you!
Masterpiece and entertaining 🙌🏻😂
Thank you!
I guess I used to think Brian really believed in polygamy but after this I can’t believe he hasn’t deliberately set out to deceive as many as he can knowing full well that Joseph never practiced polygamy. It’s just too contrived… he can’t have created this narrative accidentally
@7dixixiebug I can’t speak to what Brian might believe. To heighten the irony, I framed the video as though he used the tricks deliberately, but it’s possible he didn’t even realize he did it. There is almost no limit to the human capacity for self-deception. Alternately, he may have realized but considered the tricks worth it to make people believe what he’s already decided is the truth.
It is so wonderful to see so many working to exonerate Joseph and so many coming to the truth!
Thank you for saying so. I think so, too!
Well that's interesting, I'm a southern baptist type fella, but i have a close friend who is not apart of the main lds church.
@stachman9531 Thank you for watching! I’m glad that you found it interesting.
I can't wait to see Aron Ra taking about this, since he's doing a reading on the Mormon Book and such
@definitivamenteno-malo7919 I don’t know who Aaron Ra is, but I doubt that he would talk about this. Most people aren’t aware of it, and it’s not directly related to the Book of Mormon. But if he does talk about it, good.
@@IBelieveJoseph He's an ex-Mormon science-divulger and atheist activist, tho.
@definitivamenteno-malo7919 Ah. Well, nobody’s perfect. But from what I’ve seen, ex-and anti-Mormons often seem very emotionally attached to the anti-monogamist theories. I think it gives them a convenient reason to dismiss Joseph Smith completely.
I have a problem, though. Hemlock Knots just made a video about how he thinks that sealings never happened during Joseph's time.
If sealings aren't doctrinal, the modern church is insanely wrong about everything. The church falls apart.
I don't know. Did William Law also lie about polygamy? I just don't see how this all works.
@Misa_Susaki I think that monogamous marriage dealings did happen. Records show that Hyrum Smith gave at least one talk where he decried polygamy, saying that people were twisting his sealing to his dead wife (with his current wife acting as proxy) into polygamy. He talked quite a bit about marriage sealing. In the context of the time,there’s no reason for that speech to have been invented. It was later suppressed multiple times by the LDS church, so maybe the HK person doesn’t know about it. Here’s one of my videos on it: th-cam.com/video/QxVtJvgvHAs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=vEMM7S4_d5dPbfEx
I understand what you are doing here, however you can flip every argument around and apply it to the anti-polygamy side.
If the anti-polygamy was such a slam dunk, then you wouldn't have to make defamatory videos like this.
1. Anti-polygamy proponents (APP) have misrepresented things
2. APP have said if polygamy was practiced it should be written about more
3. APP have said that no open polygamy means no polygamy at all
4. APP have used very dubious sources to support their claim
5. APP have twisted things to support their claim
6. APP have assumed the conclusion first
7. APP have been very flexible with sources
8. APP never give the other side any credit. Full demonization campaign like you are doing now.
9. APP interpret everything to support their claim
10. APP ignore obvious contradictions
You're not necessarily wrong but the goal of the side of the critics is simply to show uncertainty while the polygamy traditionalists plant their flag as being the only rational position one can take and appeal to authority. You own the burden of proof when you argue for complete certainty. It doesn't matter if the critics have their own contradictions to explain.
@@PeterBrownscouts Because neither side can win on the facts alone, they are now slinging mud.
The polygamy debate has been going on for at least 50 years now. Nothing new or original is being discovered.
@Telavian I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that the monogamist arguments are airtight, only that the anti-monogamist arguments are insufficient. Of course, I cannot be responsible for what other people may have said.
As far your accusation that the monogamist side is guilty of the same things as Brian: I presented specific, documented examples of what one person did, and you responded with vague, undocumented assertions of what an unspecified group of people have done. I am not impressed.
I don't see this as defamatory at all. defamatory - damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libellous. I just don't see it. If someone takes a public position on a matter and you refute that with analysis and facts then how does this fit the term. I also agree with presenter that you are throwing out very vague reasoning with no examples at all. If you took any subject and all who ever spoke about it all your points would apply for at least one presenter or author.
@@IBelieveJoseph Thank you for letting me know that you are not impressed. It really helps move the discussion forward.
You are condensing an entire field of study to a few selected quotes and sources. This is so silly. Entire books have been written on the subject on both sides. 1000+ sources to support both arguments. Picking one or two sources to criticized and then acting like you have analyzed the entire argument is so misleading.
This is exactly what you have done here. This is a focused analysis, which really is completely meaningless. I am not impressed.
This is exactly what you and others have done. I know one very popular anti-polygamy person who criticized Quinn for literally one source he used. She then used that to discredit his entire research. This is so silly, however it is exactly what you are doing here. I am not impressed.
Quinn is one of the most researched, and quoted, scholars in Mormonism. He impresses me, however you certainly don't.
I love Joseph Smith... why are our leaders being stupid with the Temple "steeple" in Longview TX? Its causing worldwide negative view of the church. We might as well send all missionaries home for 2 years. The churchs reputation is ruined. Who's running this church? I feel like Joseph Smith was the last real Prophet everyone after him is like ummmm ok i guess! sometimes inspired but makes a lot of mistakes.
Can you make a video on why you believe mormonism to be true
@SirdanielCR I think that I discussed that briefly in this video:
th-cam.com/video/jxcC0TTGFfs/w-d-xo.html
Are you the same author of the channel Uncorrelated Mormonism?
@matthewtaylor2344 Thank you for the question! I am not. In fact, I don’t recall ever seeing any of Uncorrelated Mormonism’s videos.
The main "technique" we LDS use is D&C 132. Our written, canonized scripture.
Are you aware that D&C 132 was not canonized until 1876, 32 years after Joseph was murdered? Are you further aware of the law of Monogamy that was canonized during Joseph’s lifetime? You can see the original D&C 101 on marriage on the Joseph Smith Papers website.
Yes. I'm aware of all that. It is still our canonized doctrine and it is true. Brigham Young was as true of a prophet as Joseph Smith.
Once I truly studied section 132 and compared it to Jacob 1-3, I knew that both could not be true and as I have a firm testimony that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, I choose the Book of Mormon which makes it unmistakably clear that multiple wives and concubines are an abomination and not of God. I encourage you to do your own marriage study purely from scripture.
Jacob was named after the polygamist Jacob. Lehi and Sariah really admired a wicked polygamist to name their son after him. The Book of Mormon wouldn't exist without it.
Did you know that John 4 is a Type for Jacob's meeting of Rachel at the well and their subsequent marriage. Jesus is teaching the church passing from Judah to Joseph here, the brides being the two covenant churches.
Those who throw subsequent restoration prophets under the bus are no help to anyone’s faith.
Not true. If you can explain how it's more important to keep your eye on the Lord and put leaders in their proper role as simply messengers, your faith should increase because it's centered on the Rock and not a man
@@PeterBrownscouts My faith is centered on Christ and his prophet.
@jerry_phillips That depends entirely on whether one’s faith is centered in Jesus Christ, or men.
@@IBelieveJoseph We wouldn't know about Jesus Christ were it not for men. Jesus Christ didn't write a single verse of scripture. I'm pretty sure He expects us to trust His prophets.
@@jerry_phillips Jesus > "Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost."
Also Jesus > "Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another."
Most members like to quote Amos 3:7, or D&C 1:38, but even those verses have greater context and never justify blind faith in men.