The things I know to be true about the Expositor: The newspaper printed one volume before it was destroyed The owners and operators of the paper hated Joseph Smith, and the restored church with a passion The people operating the newspaper vowed to kill Joseph Smith The Expositor was shut down by the entire city council, not by Joseph Smith The printing press was destroyed because they were causing a very dangerous situation that affected the safety of everyone in and around the city The things printed in the expositor made it clear that they were intentionally trying to invoke a riot Brigham Young, Wilford, Woodruff, John Taylor, and others were about to go down for printing bogus. In other words, fraudulently making counterfeit paper money and fake coins. These men were extremely dishonest, and were willing to try to get away with pretty much anything. There is a record that shows the men were keeping it a secret and especially did not want Joseph to know about it, because “he would never allow such a thing“. The Laws, Fosters, Higbee’s, and others were at one time in very important positions within the restored church. Their love of money got the best of them. Once they became disaffected, their love of the prophet and the gospel turned to extreme hatred. This is the truth about the Expositor and the people Joseph was having to deal with. Joseph and Hyrum were murdered because of their absolute unwillingness to allow polygamy, plural marriage and spiritual wifery. That was likely enough to have the Smith brothers all killed by Brigham Young and their Freemason brotherhood, but add to it the fact that the same brotherhood were all involved with counterfeiting, the demise of the Smith brothers had to be carried out to protect the order. I believe Brigham Young was truly a Satanist.
This may be the case, however you have no evidence. Her April 13th, 1844 letter to her mother says she is starting to doubt, and she wants her mom to pray for her. Her June 16th, 1844, letter, with Isaac, is decidedly against the doctrines. This seems to make sense. Most TBMs start to doubt and then either go fully back in line, or decidedly against the doctrines.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism The evidence that she is quoting from the expositor (that was published 9 days earlier) is that her complaints are identical to the allegations in the paper: plurality of gods, plurality of wives, unconditional sealing to eternal life. She read the paper and believed it.
@@Jjj53214 Again you have no evidence whatsoever. However what does this have to do with anything? Sarah and Isaac were certainly not the only ones to have issues with this doctrine. Are you saying that because they might have thought it was false doctrine because of the Expositor, then it wasn't false doctrine? I showed from the scriptures, in several cases, how Joseph was teaching false doctrine. Joseph was essentially redefining God in the KFD. Newspapers just a few days later published negative reports of his speech.
What I have shown is that she very easily could have gotten her list of greviences from what she recently read and believed in the expositor. Therefore, her account cannot be treated as independent from the allegations in the expositor. Sometimes people read something in the paper and they automatically accept it.
@@Jjj53214 She could have gotten it from aliens as well. I completely agree. She is not needed at all in the overall picture. I don't know why it matters at all.
The more Joseph's flaws are exposed the more relieved I am. Because if Joseph could make so many mistakes and still be exalted then that means I can make a ton of mistakes and be exalted also. God's mercy is stronger than we can ever know. Only Jesus was perfect.
God is merciful. However, I believe Joseph had a specific role and God used him for that. I personally wouldn't think God would treat me favorably if I started introducing false doctrine and taught an incorrect gospel.
I've been asked to watch this. I have several questions so far, but maybe this one is worth bringing up. @ 24:25 you say, "Joseph was surrounded by yes men who would do anything he wanted. This absolutely had to play a role in how Joseph saw himself and how he thought others saw him." I'm curious how this is your view. Considering that Joseph had called William Law as his first counsellor, and before that John Bennett, and considering the many other men who dissented from positions of authority, not to mention the distinct lack of control he had over the behavior and claims of the apostles and other elders, manifest in the huge efforts he had to go to to curb at the very least "unauthorized" polygamy, why do you claim he was surrounded by yes men? Even when people dissented and opposed him, he usually forgave them and let them continue on -- the opposite of harshly punishing people for opposition, which is what totalitarians do. At times he put himself up for a vote to be removed if the people wanted that. When we wanted to remove Sydney Rigdon from his first presidency, he instead deferred to the vote of the people who chose to keep him in. Even in selecting his own first presidency he didn't defer to his own authority. Your argument seems to be that Joseph, as happens to totalitarians who accumulate power surround themselves with sycophants, gained a very inflated sense of his own significance. However, the plain history shows that this simply isn't true. He did not at all surround himself by yes men, or try to accumulate power over others. The historical record makes that quite clear. Again at 34:00 you say, "There were very few people who would say no to Joseph by virtue of his position. Those that did disagree with him were excommunicated like we already saw with William Law." Again, this does not at all align with the historical record. Maybe I haven't gotten there yet, but so far you haven't mentioned that Joseph believed, based on reports he found credible, that William Law was plotting to murder him (which seems to be validated by Law's later actions.) Many people disagreed with Joseph and were not excommunicated. Joseph was usually very slow to excommunicate people. Law's case was exceptional, but again, he was plotting, along with some of the worst characters such as Joseph Jackson, to murder Joseph and the entire Smith family.
Thanks for the look at the content. I am perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong about some things. If we look though then we can see: 1. This is a minor point, however William Law and Bennett were both called by revelation or at least what Joseph claimed was revelation. Joseph never personally called his councilors and so he had no authority to release them either. 2. The incident you refer to regarding Sydney is incorrect. This is another example of the records being changed. T&S 4:330 describes Joseph wanting Sydney. The HoC version was changed to Joseph not wanting Sydney. I compare the two accounts here: uncorrelatedmormonism.com/the-true-law-of-common-consent/ 3. Certainly not everyone saw Joseph the same way. Most of the leadership though accepted every word from Joseph as if it was from God. Certainly there could have been some subversive elements regarding polygamy. However there could not also. If Joseph said jump then people would almost always say how high. He was put in as a prophet, priest, and king. I am not sure how much higher someone can be in the eyes of others.
@@Jjj53214 Again you're missing the point. I am not saying they shouldn't have been removed. I am saying the way they were removed was completely wrong. This also has nothing to do with the original post. If you want to discuss this then it is easiest to start a new post otherwise things get so confusing and hard to keep on track.
@@uncorrelatedmormonismYou’ll be wise not to visit the influence of the Masons in the temporal affairs of the Church, beginning in 1842. William Law was the driving force in the murder of Joseph and Hiram. I believe Joseph.
I largely agree with the contents of this video except for 2 parts. 1) The idea that God could fall from Godhood is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon in Alma 42:13. 2) A plurality of Gods is clearly taught before the Nauvoo period, as evidenced by D&C 76:58.
1. Alma 42:13 - I don't think that means what you think it does. This is like saying 1 "could not" equal 2, "if so" mathematics "would cease to be [true]". Based on your conclusion then this statement means it is possible that mathematics could not be true. 2. D&C 76:58 - Gods with a little g is not the same as gods with a big g. Right now, I am a god because I can decide between life and death. I have the power to create and destroy. However, this is not the same level as God.
@uncorrelatedmormonism I agree that we will never outrank Jesus or God the Father. The Book of Revelation says Jesus is "Lord of lords." So even after being gods ourselves, we are still still subject to Jesus as our God. Just as Jesus will remain subject to God the Father.
@@jaredvaughan1665 This could be true. However, in the classical look at things then why? Couldn't I become "better"? Couldn't I "advance" faster? Couldn't I "help" more people? When we look at the idea of progression in Mormonism then it is literally a MLM pyramid structure. Yes, Jesus is "above" us currently. However why should we assume that is always the case? There are millions of gods above him. I see no reason to think we couldn't skip ahead if we wanted to. Of course, I don't believe any of that. I think there is one God and not one million of them.
@uncorrelatedmormonism If there is only one God are you buying the Nicene Creed? And what is so special about this "one God" that makes it impossible for the rest of us to be as He is? Is it because He got there first and so has stopped the rest of us from progressing as far as he got?
@@jaredvaughan1665 To believe in one god is to accept the Nicene creed? I don't see how this follows. If we accept and follow God, then we have all the power and authority of God already. I am not sure the advantage of being "God" actually. I already have the power of life and death, to create or destroy, to build and shape reality as I see fit. Are you not satisfied unless you have control of everything in an instant? God has given you your very existence. I am not sure why there is animosity concerning this.
Next question. Blaming the Mormons, almost exclusively, for the violence in Missouri, and condemning Joseph for his escape from Liberty Jail are more surprises. I don't even know what to say to these claims. Wow. Let me just point out one thing -- you seem to assume that everything happening in Missouri -- the men's imprisonment and the trial -- was all legal and would be carried out fairly and legally. You then point out that the jailer who allowed Joseph to escape was mobbed and dragged through the street, which killed him. In other words, he was murdered by an angry mob. Do you recognize how that one fact alone invalidates your implied claim that the Missourians were the good guys and Joseph was wrong to not fully submit to their legal authority? "It is safe to say that the Missourians wanted justice for what Joseph and the church had done the previous year." Again, this is truly shocking. All the blame is one the Mormons, and the Missourians were respectably only seeking "justice." As in legal justice? This is honestly your view?
I don't believe I exclusively blamed the Mormons however I can see why you can believe this. 1. The Missourians didn't like the rapid influx and gather of the members 2. The Missourians were hostile to the Mormons 3. The Mormons were hostile back 4. This went on for some time. 5. Sydney delivered his Salt Sermon which called for an extermination of Missourians 6. The Mormons began a systematic destruction of Missourians property 7. There was a literal war between Missourians and the Mormons 8. The members retreated to Far West and were surrounded 9. Joseph surrendered and negotiated peace 10. Joseph spent some time in jail and eventually illegally escaped 11. The Missourians didn't like this and killed the jailer. 12. Joseph continued to fight extradition until his death. 13. Joseph continued to update the laws of Nauvoo to aid his extradition fight. Again, the whole thing was not one sided. However the Mormons retaliated and made it significantly worse. Joseph then illegally escaped and fought extradition which made things worse. uncorrelatedmormonism.com/turned-over-to-satan/
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Joseph "illegally escaped" a situation where he was kept in prison and prevented from having a fair trial. I think the law was dead when he "illegally escape." I guess you could say that he "illegally escaped illegal imprisonment." But to be fair to you I think you are trying to provide balancing arguments to the prevailing LDS narrative where the Saints were the good guys and the Missourians the bad guys. In reality the scriptures say that the "wicked slay the wicked." Clearly there was wickedness on both sides. And the Danite secret oaths and practices were warned about in the Book of Mormon. Just as polygamy was condemned in the Book of Mormon! Basically whenever the Saints (including Joseph) strayed from the Book of Mormon teachings they were inflicted. In Joseph's case his polygamy cost him his life. And I think Church members knowing both sides of the coin is needful. In my case I don't see the Missourians as totally bad. Or the Church members (including Joseph) as totally good. And I think black and white thinking harms everyone and justifies alot of abuse and false doctrine. Which is how polygamy came about.
You keep saying that the excommunications were “illegal,” and making comparisons to government courts. You surely know that a church court and a court of law are very different. Conflating them is misleading.
This is a strange statement to make. They were illegal according to the laws of God. God set his laws for the church to follow, and the leaders chose not to follow them. Thus it was an act in violation of the laws and consequently illegal. I think illegal is a perfectly valid word to use. Illegal: Not legal; unlawful; contrary to law; illicit; as an illegal act; illegal trade.
Fair enough, but it’s odd that you didn’t say that in the video, and instead drew comparisons to law courts, as at 13:43. If you drew the distinction elsewhere and I missed it, my apologies. Also, you mentioned that there is a different process for trying a First Presidency member, found in D&C 107. I can’t find anything about it except verses 82-3, which don’t seems to mention witnesses or trials at all. Perhaps I’m just not seeing it?
@@IBelieveJoseph I drew the comparison because they are similar. Certainly, a legal court is more rigorous, however in a church court you still have the prosecution and defense concept. When I was ward clerk I attended a church court, and I personally had my "court of love" and saw essentially the same thing. The excommunications in the Expositor's case were a mixture of the 12 and the High Council however this is not the way that it should be. In my video, "The Proper Organization of the Church" I show how the 12 and the stakes have completely different roles for inside Zion and outside of Zion. I know the language of 107:82 is kind of vague, however 107:24 suggest that the 12 in special cases have equal authority to the First Presidency. This seems natural to me to suggest that the 12 should be trying the First Presidency, not a random assortment of 12 random "counselors of the High Priesthood". Could one rogue stake take the entire church down? Another case is D&C 102:12-14 which describes disciplinary councils and how 6 should be for the person, and 6 should be against. v 18: "In all cases the accuser and the accused shall have a privilege of speaking for themselves before the council, after the evidences are heard and the councilors who are appointed to speak on the case have finished their remarks." This certainly didn't happen because the accused were not even there to begin with and there was no "accuser" so to speak. A judge can't preside at a trial while also being a witness for or against. It is interesting though because v 20 says that the decision can be vetoed. However, the LDS church certainly doesn't do this today. Today the handbook says the president makes the final decision and the councilors are "invited to sustain" the decision.
So it’s definitely illegal-if you compare it to the modern church and interpret vague language a certain way and draw inferences from other sections and associate it with the procedures of unrelated state law courts. Sure.
@@IBelieveJoseph So you're saying it is illegal if we compare it against the scriptures? I am glad we can agree. In what world is it okay to excommunicate people when they can say nothing in their defense and are not even present? In what world is it okay to follow procedures for some people, however abandon them for other, who conveniently are your enemies? In your mind this is how the church should work? This is exactly how dictatorships work.
You ascribe a negative connotation to the idea that Joseph was referred to as a prophet, priest, and king in his political organization of the Council of 50 in his democratic running for the presidency. Actually, the idea of prophet, priest, and king can have a quite benign interpretation. For example, consider the meaning in the Catholic Church: The baptized serve as priests through their sacrificial efforts to bring people to God. They serve as prophets through their witness to the truth in word and deed. And they serve as kings in their efforts to lead others-again through word and deed-to use their talents to advance the Kingdom of God (see CCC 1241).
You're stretching things quite a bit. There is only one prophet, priest, and king which is Christ. You can redefine things all day but that doesn't make it true.
If you research the subject, you will find that it is a common sentiment among Christian sects for members to aspire to become a prophet, priest, and king in a saintly sense. I am not making up this definition, it is prevalent viewpoint that is held by many Christians.
That’s fine. But one cannot automatically conclude that Smith had a devious plan to combine church and state at the national level simply because he used the phraseology or prophet, priest, and king. As already stated, that terminology is prevalent in Christian thought as merely an expression of a Christian’s desire to become devout.
Ummm... he was "terrified about it getting out?" There wasn't anything new that hadn't already been said... all lies that had already been being said and published in other venues.
@@uncorrelatedmormonismthe fact he didn’t violently destroy other presses accusing him of the exact same thing is evidence against your point, not in favor of it. I’m sure you read the expositor one it’s entirety so you’re fully aware, that multiple times in the expositor it calls for war, extermination, and all around violence towards the saints. Many of those involved in its printing made publicly available statements of their desire to unalive smith, 2 mock courts and a well respected non Mormon lawyer, along with a legal trial OUTSIDE of nauvoo presided by a non Mormon judge, all claimed the destruction of the expositor was justified. And yet you rely on Joseph’s indictment in a trial that never ended up taking place (that never should have because that’s definition double jeopardy) to say it was unjustified? The entire trial was just a trap to get Joseph smith vulnerable to unalive him. Oddly enough we have writings from publishers of the expositor previous to the martyr that talk of planning exactly that. But that’s just a coincidence right? Or how law fled the state literally hours before the mob left to Carthage?
Excellent research Patrick. I’m with you. The truth lies in the middle somewhere. I believe Joseph’s own words in the Book of Commandments to “pretend to no other gift.” He would have been better off to heed God’s advice he received through the Urim and Thummim. I still believe Joseph was a good man with good intentions surrounded by good people giving him bad advice. This further cements in my mind that church history is a mess that gets worse with increased attention and the Book of Mormon is a beauty that gets better with attention.
Thanks. Yes church history is a mess. I also think Joseph was a generally good person. I doubt he was intentionally doing anything malicious. Many people of that time had different ethical boundaries than we do today therefore we have to examine people in the time that they lived. I was having a conversation with someone earlier today who said that a testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is that even though Joseph and the church did all sorts of questionable things, the Book of Mormon still rose above the filth. Truth is eternal and will always rise above the filth.
While I do agree with you about the Nauvoo era not being innocent and there being darkness in certain areas, I disagree with most of the rest of your conclusions. I'm sure you are aware that all of the owners of the Nauvoo Expositor were bitter enemies of JSJr and at least half of them had sworn to kill him. You could argue about the accusations back and forth because both sides have plenty to say about the other. However, in a court of law, the evidence against JSJr would not hold up. In fact, any of the Expositor owners could have taken JSJr to court at any time for the crime of polygamy (since it was against the law in every state of the U.S.) if they had any evidence for it. So, to take as your premise that the owners of the Expositor are telling the truth is starting off on a sandy foundation. I'm not suggesting that JSJr is innocent of all charges but you are showing your bias at the outset. Your conclusion about the High Council decision is incorrect and missing some things. Who was on the High Council in Nauvoo might provide some interesting insights. - JSJr - Hyrum Smith - Young (on a mission) - John Taylor - Orson Pratt - HC Kimball (on a mission) - Orson Hyde (early adopter of the spiritual wife system) - Sylvester Emmons - Benjamin Warrington - Daniel Spencer According to William Smith, JSJr's bro, he had visited JSJr and Emma in April 1844 and while at breakfast overheard some of the back and forth about the goings on in Nauvoo at the time. Emma reportedly told JSJr that some of the sisters were reporting to her as RS Pres that Young, Richards, and Taylor were secretly teaching the sisters in Nauvoo doctrines that were going to ruin the church if it wasn't stopped because it was contrary to the laws and rules of the church (The Saints' Herald vol 26, No 8; "The Death of the Two Martyrs" pg 117). It is a proven fact that Kimball, Young and I believe Hyde all had polygamous wives in the early 1840's and that this was kept a strict secret. Richards took a polygamous wife in early 1840's and Taylor also took a polygamous wife before JSJr's death. So, you have half of the high council who are secretly practicing polygamy to which JSJr and Hyrum have publicly denounced and refuted as a practice of the church. This is important because Emma Smith would later relate that JSJr told her that he did not like the counsel to destroy the Expositor and had told the High Council that if destroying the press was the will of the council that he (JSJr) would be the one held responsible (no one else in the Council would suffer repercussions and it would all fall on him). The High Counsel also sought legal advice from a known lawyer who said that they were within their rights to do what they did. To further add to the idea that destroying the Expositor was not JSJr's preference, William Smith said that Richards and Taylor through "constant importunities" upon JSJr eventually got him to sign the ordinance to destroy the Expositor. This is more complex than you present and there is evidence to support either claim - JSJr is innocent or guilty. However, as stated above, your bias is a problem in this presentation. The LDS church has lots of problems but the Book of Mormon is a sacred text and JSJr, by all appearances that I've been able to gather, was innocent of polygamy and probably the majority of the crimes and faults he was accused of.
Thank you for the feedback. Church history is a mess and we are only seeing the part that has been preserved. This of course is not the full picture. 1. Joseph was indicted on the charge of perjury, fornication, and polygamy. He appeared before the court in May 1844, however the trial was postponed. He happened to die before the trial could happen. I really wish it would have happened as we would have a lot more clarity. 2. William Law and others were excommunicated without a trial and without an ability to present evidence in their defense. This is unjust and against the laws of the church. 3. JS may have caved it is impossible to know. However he was the one to sign the order, he requested maximum destruction, he sent the order to the legion, he is the one saying he wanted the Expositor gone. This also is using later recollections to justify Joseph's actions. Why should we trust those recollections and not others? Wouldn't people naturally want to defend Joseph when they saw what happened? I know everyone loves to focus on polygamy however I think that is just a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I agree it is messy. William Law was excommunicated because by his own mouth he admitted to adultery and in the presence of several church leaders, not just JSJr. The trial was postponed because one of the Laws (I think it was) who brought the suit did not show up but JSJr was present. JSJr's legal counsel told him it was in his best interest to have the trial because they had nothing to hide so they went forward with it rather than seeking to have it dismissed. The trials of the Temple Lot and (another trial that I can't remember the name of) both proved that claims made by the Utah Church that JSJr started and practiced polygamy was unfounded and likely not true. The accusation of polygamy is important in the case of JSJr because all of this comes down to character. As I said in my previous post, there is evidence to support either claim (JSJr was innocent of most of the wrongs accused or he was guilty) and therefore, the character of the accused needs to be taken into account, just like in a trial. Emma was always spoken of by everyone (except Brigham Young) as being one of the most upright people they ever knew. Depending on who you ask, JSJr was also said to be the same. Is he a villain, a fallen prophet or is it possible he was actually a very good man that was surrounded by corrupt and reproachable church leaders. Brigham Young was very likely committing adultery on at least two of his missions (he specifically requested to not have any companions with him) with eye witness accounts to prove it. Orson Hyde was an adulterer, Richards was an adulterer, Kimball, etc. These men used the practice of polygamy to hide their unrighteous desires and it speaks against their character. Aside from that, read and look into the works and words of Brigham Young and it doesn't take long to know what kind of man he was - you know his character.
@@duncansh81 The illegal excommunication, in the night with no notice and no defense, was for William, Wilson, Jane, and RD Foster. All people Joseph didn't like. The Temple Lot case was 50 years later and not focused on polygamy. I actually helped transcribe all the records. If we go on accusations alone then Joseph is also guilty. This is why accusations are such a dangerous game to play.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism From things I've read, JSJr was a very forgiving person and would give people multiple chances to repent and as long as they kept on repenting, he would suffer them (as it says in BoM). JC Bennet being the prime example of that. Bennet was very repentant while in the meeting where he was confronted and agreed to sign an affidavit stating he was guilty and JSJr had never taught him such things. After leaving Nauvoo Bennet began his campaign to harangue and slander JSJr and the other saints (some of them were definitely guilty of some of the crimes he was alleging). He had church discipline done often quietly so that no one knew much aside from those who had to know. Could you provide meeting minutes for the excommunications you cited? As things got worse in Nauvoo he realized he needed to be more public about who was sinning. I have read quite a bit about the temple lot case and I know it wasn't about polygamy but it quickly became an important focus for good reason. I assume you know that as well but left that out of your comment. Let me amend my final point from last comment. Both sides have points against Joseph's character. Let's use the scriptures as the way to judge - did Joseph bring forth good fruit or evil fruit? BoM was good fruit, so much of the actual things that JSJr taught and did were good fruits. This is why getting to the bottom of where Utah church polygamy came from is so important. Polygamy was not good fruit, despite what church leaders at the time taught. Did it come from JSJr or Brigham Young and the other adulterous church leaders at that time?
@@duncansh81 The meeting minutes are linked in the article. You should read the entire temple lot case, all the records are linked on my blog. I assembled a huge team and we transcribed them a year ago or so. The Book of Mormon is good fruit. However, God told Joseph that he was to have no other gift. I think most of what we claim as truth in the LDS church is a deviation from truth. The problem with modern Mormonism though is the belief that if Joseph was a prophet then everything he did, or everything the LDS church does is true. This doesn't logically follow.
@uncorrelatedmormonism It just seems GLOOMY on your side of the argument. You could spend time looking for evidence in support of Joseph... do you really think M. Stone is missing or dismissing arguments?
Truth is kind of gloomy when you really look at it. Adam and Eve lost the Garden because of disobedience. Israel lost their place because of disobedience. The Nephites lost their place because of disobedience. The early Christian church lost their place because of disobedience. The early Mormon church lost their place because of disobedience. The people today are largely going to be destroyed because of disobedience. God was serious in Book of Commandments 4. We are either his people and enjoy his blessings, or we are Satan's people and enjoy his blessings.
Good research and work on this video. Unveils much despite the fact that it may not be "the whole" story considering all the possabilites. Making a "government" upon the earth where a people can practice their religion, is in no way beyond good intent nor beyond accomplishing. We may oppose this secondary temporal style of government but people are also trained to oppose it because of the power it wields.....ie see BY and his work. This also in no way is an obvious picture of what JS envisioned...a temporal government where the pure in heart flourish. The coming forth of such a government is in no way based on the leader of such but is dependent on the people in the group whom....as we know from history, made many errors. "The Law" is always the ultimate tool to dispense with prophets ie see Yeshua and his life.
You seem to have become a Joseph Smith basher lately. The expositor is is NOT the gospel and you seem to think everything in it was 100% true, short lived as it was. (Just like CNN is is true) You say you have no problem against alcohol but use it to bash Joseph AGAIN. But Jesus turned water into wine, and LOTS of it. You don't think people drank too much at that wedding? Are you going to bash Jesus over that too? Sure Joseph made mistakes (lots) and he and his followers pushed things too far (popularity will do that but it doesn't take away that his mission and maybe it was his only mission, was to bring forth and translate the Book of Mormon.) AND Joseph himself states that he is fallen prophet but seriously you are starting to dedicate video after video to bashing him. You obviously have a problem since being ex-ed. (Joseph didn't get you ex-ed. The LDS church ex-ed you, and that church is NOTHING like the church at the beginning with Joseph and NOTHING at all like the gospel of Christ as found in the Book of Mormon.) Are you going to start bashing the book of Mormon next?
I have liked many of your presentations in the past but unfortunately I believe you have gone off the rails here. I certainly feel Joseph and the members of the church were making some serious mistakes however I do not believe that Joseph was taking advantage of young, old or any other women as you indicated. Polygamy was not a practice of Joseph or Hyrum. You are grossly mistaken. I guess I will have to move on to another channel.
@uncorrelatedmormonism question I assume your Mormons becouse talk about it lot my question is what happen after death by Mormons beliefs becouse I heard from ex Mormon that Mormon believe in like multiple place you can go after death like realms and she say there place you can be at and angel will come preach gospel and give second change to accept gospel is these true can you explain what everywhere a soul can go after death?
I don’t understand when you say that JS never engaged in polygamy and even polyandry. The church vaults are just crawling with evidence that he did…female member journals elicit this fact wholeheartedly.
@jamesisaacson6379 As one who was a Mormon until recently, I can explain that to you. Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible, so everything that it teaches about Heaven and Hell are understood by Mormons, as well. The Book of Mormon talks about this, too. In Alma 40: 11-14, a man named Alma is explaining this concept to one of his sons. He says: "Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection - Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life. "And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow. "And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil - for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house-and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil. "Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection." So that's not that different from what most Christians believe, I think. You see, just like how Christians believe in everything that Jews believe (the Old Testament), plus more (the New Testament), Mormons believe in everything that Christians believe (the Bible), plus more (The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and all the words of their "modern prophets"). So their belief of the afterlife is pretty much the same as most Christians, but with additional information with it. The "multiple heavens" thing is not between death and the resurrection, but only after the resurrection. Mormons believe that the journey we're all on started in the spirit world, then we were born here, then we'll die and go back to the spirit world (some to a heavenly area of the spirit world, and others to a not-so-nice area), then we'll all be resurrected, then we'll all be gathered in front of the Father and the Son to be judged one final time for our sins (and Jesus will intercede for all of us who put their trust in Him), and *then* we each go to different "kingdoms of glory": The Telestial Kingdom, where wicked people go (murderers, adulterers, thieves, liars, etc), which will still be pretty nice, since they at least fought on the right side of the war against Satan before the Earth was created; the Terrestrial Kingdom, where those who believed in Jesus, but weren't very valiant, or refused to believe in Jesus (during their life or afterward), and yet were some pretty good people; and the Celestial Kingdom, where all those who fully trusted in Jesus Christ go, and where we can inherit everything the Father has. There's also "Outer Darkness", where Satan and all his followers will go forever. There's a lot more that Mormons believe, like how you need to also make and keep certain covenants in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom, and that the Celestial Kingdom has 3 more levels inside of it. Read and study it all for yourself, so you can come to an informed decision as to whether you believe it's true or false.
@@steveambrose2349 everything Joseph taught publicly and in private, was against Polygamy, Spiritual wifery, and sometimes even specifically “illicit intercourse“. He and Hyrum were both 100% against it. They lived against it and they died against it. Documents were changed after their death to make it look like they were“practicing it secretly“. Brigham Young tried to make polygamy look like Joseph‘s idea even though Joseph was 100% against it all the days of his life. The scriptures preach against polygamy. Brigham was a sorry, no good evil man, and was never a prophet of God, even though current LDS members believe that he was. God never called him to be a prophet. Ever. Brigham was one of the seven men who gathered fragments of the membership of Joseph’s restored church after he was murdered. Brigham took a few thousand people west to the Salt Lake Valley, but over 10,000 more stayed behind. None of the Smiths followed Brigham Young because they did not trust him. A judge ruled against Brigham Young and would not let him have any of the LDS buildings or property. The judge ruled that Brigham‘s church was not the same as Joseph’s church. When members wouldn’t accept something Brigham usually claimed that it was a Doctrine taught to him by Joseph. People trusted Joseph much more than they trusted Brigham Young. It’s true that LDS church archives are full of testimonies, eye witnesses, written affidavits, etc. supporting Joseph as a polygamist but it’s all bullshit. Brigham had people falsify affidavits to help him win a court case against Emma. The judge ruled completely against him because he knew everything was phony. The LDS corporation today is simply a continuation of what Brigham Young started after the death of the prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph’s Church and Brigham‘s church are two completely different churches. Brigham taught his own doctrines. Brigham practice polygamy secretly many years before Joseph was murdered. In fact, Joseph was murdered specifically because of his nonacceptance of polygamy. The stories of Joseph’s Polygamy, polyandry, teenage girl cohesion, are all rumors falsely imposed against Joseph. Joseph was disgusted by the abomination of polygamy, Joseph never taught that blacks were lesser people, Joseph never taught that Adam was God, Joseph, never taught that people inhabited, the moon, and Joseph never taught blood atonement, Brigham’s man-made doctrine where people had to pay for their own sins with their own blood. Joseph never was a mason, and he never wore garments. Everything I just mentioned is the product of Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith.
In her take on this she focuses very little on the expositor itself and mainly attacks the character of William Law and others. If what I have said is wrong though, then shouldn't you be able to tell me how without ignoring what I say?
@uncorrelatedmormonism I will go back and relisten to this AND read the Expositor. Bro. It's almost totally all or nothing for Joseph Smith. What are YOU trying to prove here, that he was a pedophile? That he excommunicated without a hearing? Many documents from 1842 on had pages intentionally left blank in places so ther could be adjusted later. Michelle goes over many of these things adnauseam
It is not all or nothing. Joseph was a human and had ups and downs like everyone else. Sometimes I have been very close to God and other times not as much. There were blank sections in journals for all sorts of reasons. I doubt it was so they could insert polygamy everywhere. If you look at the journals there are many blank sections and only a handful were ever changed. In my personal journal I literally also left blank sections because I knew I was going to come back and write about something later. We really need to think of things in context and not in a vacuum.
go and listen to what Lindsay Hansen Park (Year Of Polygamy podcast) has to say about the "Joseph Fought Polygamy" hogwash. Michelle responded to that in a video which was a 3 hour whinefest, in which she made ad hominen attacks against Lindsay.
Uncorrelated Mormonism, I have always enjoyed your research, but this one baffles me. It makes no sense at all. This is not what happened with the Expositor at all. This is not truly what happened. You make Joseph look like a bad guy. Joseph was a great man of amazing integrity.
I can understand the reaction. I also don't want to make Joseph look like a bad guy. However, I believe when the church was rejected, and Joseph's eyes were covered then he became a 19th century man just like everyone else.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism What information from a source that is not from Joseph or under his control that he was ever more than just a normal man? All sources outside of the LDS church indicates that Smith was a career con man who took advantage of people by telling them he could find treasure by looking at rocks in his hat. It is only the testimony of Smith and those who he had under his control that indicates that he was anything other than a criminal. Your video here supports that Jospeh was never anything other an a con man and a career criminal, but you seem to what to ignore the facts and believe for a very short moment in time, Joseph was used by God to do something exceptional and the it all went off the rails. If what you say is true, then it makes it seem that the Mormon God is not much of a god at all seeing that a simple man was able to overcome his plan to re-establish his church on Earth. Jesus told Peter and the other disciples that He (Jesus) would establish His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, but you are saying that Satan was able to prevail. So what is the correct story? Was Jesus right, and Joseph was just a con man who fooled a bunch of people, or is God weak and ineffective in stopping Satan?
This is true. There are many contemporary sources suggesting that Joseph was not the personal his followers claimed he was. This is similar to a modern day prophet in remnant mormonism today. Inside the group people have very good things to say about him. Outside the group people have much less nice things to say. I do think though that the assumption your making is fundamentally flawed. God doesn't have to work with a perfect person in order to accomplish his work. Through Moses he church went off the rails almost right away. Through Christ his teachings went off the rails. Through Joseph his teachings went off the rails. This is human nature.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism The key for a prophet who went off the rails was repentance, if anything Smith becomes progressively worse. This has nothing to do with being perfect this has to do with Smart being everything that Jesus and the Apostles warned about false prophets and teachers.
@@darinbracy8433 Yes repentance is key. I think it is also important to remember that Deuteronomy 13 says a true prophet can have false visions. They can probably also have true visions after this once they repent. In Christianity we like to say "true prophet" or "false prophet". However we probably should say "true vision" or "false vision" instead.
When you say that the Church was "turned over to the devil," you lost me. Your subtle but apparent attack on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is disgusting.
Do you believe God? This is exactly what he said would happen in Book of Commandments 4 (1833). Joseph removed this in the 1835 reprint. "If the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them ... And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto satan" www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/14 I would encourage you to watch my video "Turned over to Satan". It shows how the church lost the fulness and was turned over to Satan.
The things I know to be true about the Expositor:
The newspaper printed one volume before it was destroyed
The owners and operators of the paper hated Joseph Smith, and the restored church with a passion
The people operating the newspaper vowed to kill Joseph Smith
The Expositor was shut down by the entire city council, not by Joseph Smith
The printing press was destroyed because they were causing a very dangerous situation that affected the safety of everyone in and around the city
The things printed in the expositor made it clear that they were intentionally trying to invoke a riot
Brigham Young, Wilford, Woodruff, John Taylor, and others were about to go down for printing bogus. In other words, fraudulently making counterfeit paper money and fake coins. These men were extremely dishonest, and were willing to try to get away with pretty much anything.
There is a record that shows the men were keeping it a secret and especially did not want Joseph to know about it, because “he would never allow such a thing“.
The Laws, Fosters, Higbee’s, and others were at one time in very important positions within the restored church. Their love of money got the best of them. Once they became disaffected, their love of the prophet and the gospel turned to extreme hatred.
This is the truth about the Expositor and the people Joseph was having to deal with. Joseph and Hyrum were murdered because of their absolute unwillingness to allow polygamy, plural marriage and spiritual wifery. That was likely enough to have the Smith brothers all killed by Brigham Young and their Freemason brotherhood, but add to it the fact that the same brotherhood were all involved with counterfeiting, the demise of the Smith brothers had to be carried out to protect the order.
I believe Brigham Young was truly a Satanist.
Thank you. I would encourage you to watch the video or read the article. Several of the things you mentioned are factually incorrect.
Amazing just Amazing the shifting and gaslighting are amazing in lds responses.
It is documented lds history that joseph had I believe 23 wives. It's accepted fact. Are you saying that joseph smith didn't write d and c 132?
Also, it's lds historical fact that smith was a free mason. They acknowledge his early money digging and peep stone now as well.
D&c 132 contradicts the scriptures.
Sarah Scott’s letter is from June 16, 1844, which is 9 days after the Expositor. She is simply reciting what she read in the paper.
This may be the case, however you have no evidence. Her April 13th, 1844 letter to her mother says she is starting to doubt, and she wants her mom to pray for her. Her June 16th, 1844, letter, with Isaac, is decidedly against the doctrines.
This seems to make sense. Most TBMs start to doubt and then either go fully back in line, or decidedly against the doctrines.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism The evidence that she is quoting from the expositor (that was published 9 days earlier) is that her complaints are identical to the allegations in the paper: plurality of gods, plurality of wives, unconditional sealing to eternal life. She read the paper and believed it.
@@Jjj53214 Again you have no evidence whatsoever. However what does this have to do with anything? Sarah and Isaac were certainly not the only ones to have issues with this doctrine. Are you saying that because they might have thought it was false doctrine because of the Expositor, then it wasn't false doctrine?
I showed from the scriptures, in several cases, how Joseph was teaching false doctrine.
Joseph was essentially redefining God in the KFD. Newspapers just a few days later published negative reports of his speech.
What I have shown is that she very easily could have gotten her list of greviences from what she recently read and believed in the expositor. Therefore, her account cannot be treated as independent from the allegations in the expositor. Sometimes people read something in the paper and they automatically accept it.
@@Jjj53214 She could have gotten it from aliens as well. I completely agree. She is not needed at all in the overall picture. I don't know why it matters at all.
The more Joseph's flaws are exposed the more relieved I am.
Because if Joseph could make so many mistakes and still be exalted then that means I can make a ton of mistakes and be exalted also.
God's mercy is stronger than we can ever know.
Only Jesus was perfect.
God is merciful. However, I believe Joseph had a specific role and God used him for that.
I personally wouldn't think God would treat me favorably if I started introducing false doctrine and taught an incorrect gospel.
I've been asked to watch this. I have several questions so far, but maybe this one is worth bringing up. @ 24:25 you say, "Joseph was surrounded by yes men who would do anything he wanted. This absolutely had to play a role in how Joseph saw himself and how he thought others saw him."
I'm curious how this is your view. Considering that Joseph had called William Law as his first counsellor, and before that John Bennett, and considering the many other men who dissented from positions of authority, not to mention the distinct lack of control he had over the behavior and claims of the apostles and other elders, manifest in the huge efforts he had to go to to curb at the very least "unauthorized" polygamy, why do you claim he was surrounded by yes men? Even when people dissented and opposed him, he usually forgave them and let them continue on -- the opposite of harshly punishing people for opposition, which is what totalitarians do. At times he put himself up for a vote to be removed if the people wanted that. When we wanted to remove Sydney Rigdon from his first presidency, he instead deferred to the vote of the people who chose to keep him in. Even in selecting his own first presidency he didn't defer to his own authority.
Your argument seems to be that Joseph, as happens to totalitarians who accumulate power surround themselves with sycophants, gained a very inflated sense of his own significance. However, the plain history shows that this simply isn't true. He did not at all surround himself by yes men, or try to accumulate power over others. The historical record makes that quite clear.
Again at 34:00 you say, "There were very few people who would say no to Joseph by virtue of his position. Those that did disagree with him were excommunicated like we already saw with William Law."
Again, this does not at all align with the historical record. Maybe I haven't gotten there yet, but so far you haven't mentioned that Joseph believed, based on reports he found credible, that William Law was plotting to murder him (which seems to be validated by Law's later actions.) Many people disagreed with Joseph and were not excommunicated. Joseph was usually very slow to excommunicate people. Law's case was exceptional, but again, he was plotting, along with some of the worst characters such as Joseph Jackson, to murder Joseph and the entire Smith family.
Thanks for the look at the content. I am perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong about some things.
If we look though then we can see:
1. This is a minor point, however William Law and Bennett were both called by revelation or at least what Joseph claimed was revelation. Joseph never personally called his councilors and so he had no authority to release them either.
2. The incident you refer to regarding Sydney is incorrect. This is another example of the records being changed. T&S 4:330 describes Joseph wanting Sydney. The HoC version was changed to Joseph not wanting Sydney. I compare the two accounts here: uncorrelatedmormonism.com/the-true-law-of-common-consent/
3. Certainly not everyone saw Joseph the same way. Most of the leadership though accepted every word from Joseph as if it was from God. Certainly there could have been some subversive elements regarding polygamy. However there could not also. If Joseph said jump then people would almost always say how high. He was put in as a prophet, priest, and king. I am not sure how much higher someone can be in the eyes of others.
@@Jjj53214 Again you're missing the point. I am not saying they shouldn't have been removed. I am saying the way they were removed was completely wrong.
This also has nothing to do with the original post. If you want to discuss this then it is easiest to start a new post otherwise things get so confusing and hard to keep on track.
@@uncorrelatedmormonismYou’ll be wise not to visit the influence of the Masons in the temporal affairs of the Church, beginning in 1842. William Law was the driving force in the murder of Joseph and Hiram. I believe Joseph.
I largely agree with the contents of this video except for 2 parts.
1) The idea that God could fall from Godhood is clearly taught in the Book of Mormon in Alma 42:13.
2) A plurality of Gods is clearly taught before the Nauvoo period, as evidenced by D&C 76:58.
1. Alma 42:13 - I don't think that means what you think it does. This is like saying 1 "could not" equal 2, "if so" mathematics "would cease to be [true]". Based on your conclusion then this statement means it is possible that mathematics could not be true.
2. D&C 76:58 - Gods with a little g is not the same as gods with a big g. Right now, I am a god because I can decide between life and death. I have the power to create and destroy. However, this is not the same level as God.
@uncorrelatedmormonism I agree that we will never outrank Jesus or God the Father.
The Book of Revelation says Jesus is "Lord of lords."
So even after being gods ourselves, we are still still subject to Jesus as our God.
Just as Jesus will remain subject to God the Father.
@@jaredvaughan1665 This could be true. However, in the classical look at things then why?
Couldn't I become "better"?
Couldn't I "advance" faster?
Couldn't I "help" more people?
When we look at the idea of progression in Mormonism then it is literally a MLM pyramid structure. Yes, Jesus is "above" us currently. However why should we assume that is always the case? There are millions of gods above him. I see no reason to think we couldn't skip ahead if we wanted to.
Of course, I don't believe any of that. I think there is one God and not one million of them.
@uncorrelatedmormonism If there is only one God are you buying the Nicene Creed?
And what is so special about this "one God" that makes it impossible for the rest of us to be as He is?
Is it because He got there first and so has stopped the rest of us from progressing as far as he got?
@@jaredvaughan1665 To believe in one god is to accept the Nicene creed? I don't see how this follows.
If we accept and follow God, then we have all the power and authority of God already. I am not sure the advantage of being "God" actually. I already have the power of life and death, to create or destroy, to build and shape reality as I see fit. Are you not satisfied unless you have control of everything in an instant?
God has given you your very existence. I am not sure why there is animosity concerning this.
Next question. Blaming the Mormons, almost exclusively, for the violence in Missouri, and condemning Joseph for his escape from Liberty Jail are more surprises. I don't even know what to say to these claims. Wow.
Let me just point out one thing -- you seem to assume that everything happening in Missouri -- the men's imprisonment and the trial -- was all legal and would be carried out fairly and legally. You then point out that the jailer who allowed Joseph to escape was mobbed and dragged through the street, which killed him. In other words, he was murdered by an angry mob. Do you recognize how that one fact alone invalidates your implied claim that the Missourians were the good guys and Joseph was wrong to not fully submit to their legal authority?
"It is safe to say that the Missourians wanted justice for what Joseph and the church had done the previous year."
Again, this is truly shocking. All the blame is one the Mormons, and the Missourians were respectably only seeking "justice." As in legal justice? This is honestly your view?
I don't believe I exclusively blamed the Mormons however I can see why you can believe this.
1. The Missourians didn't like the rapid influx and gather of the members
2. The Missourians were hostile to the Mormons
3. The Mormons were hostile back
4. This went on for some time.
5. Sydney delivered his Salt Sermon which called for an extermination of Missourians
6. The Mormons began a systematic destruction of Missourians property
7. There was a literal war between Missourians and the Mormons
8. The members retreated to Far West and were surrounded
9. Joseph surrendered and negotiated peace
10. Joseph spent some time in jail and eventually illegally escaped
11. The Missourians didn't like this and killed the jailer.
12. Joseph continued to fight extradition until his death.
13. Joseph continued to update the laws of Nauvoo to aid his extradition fight.
Again, the whole thing was not one sided. However the Mormons retaliated and made it significantly worse. Joseph then illegally escaped and fought extradition which made things worse.
uncorrelatedmormonism.com/turned-over-to-satan/
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Joseph "illegally escaped" a situation where he was kept in prison and prevented from having a fair trial. I think the law was dead when he "illegally escape." I guess you could say that he "illegally escaped illegal imprisonment."
But to be fair to you I think you are trying to provide balancing arguments to the prevailing LDS narrative where the Saints were the good guys and the Missourians the bad guys.
In reality the scriptures say that the "wicked slay the wicked."
Clearly there was wickedness on both sides. And the Danite secret oaths and practices were warned about in the Book of Mormon.
Just as polygamy was condemned in the Book of Mormon!
Basically whenever the Saints (including Joseph) strayed from the Book of Mormon teachings they were inflicted. In Joseph's case his polygamy cost him his life.
And I think Church members knowing both sides of the coin is needful.
In my case I don't see the Missourians as totally bad. Or the Church members (including Joseph) as totally good.
And I think black and white thinking harms everyone and justifies alot of abuse and false doctrine. Which is how polygamy came about.
You keep saying that the excommunications were “illegal,” and making comparisons to government courts. You surely know that a church court and a court of law are very different. Conflating them is misleading.
This is a strange statement to make. They were illegal according to the laws of God. God set his laws for the church to follow, and the leaders chose not to follow them. Thus it was an act in violation of the laws and consequently illegal.
I think illegal is a perfectly valid word to use.
Illegal: Not legal; unlawful; contrary to law; illicit; as an illegal act; illegal trade.
Fair enough, but it’s odd that you didn’t say that in the video, and instead drew comparisons to law courts, as at 13:43. If you drew the distinction elsewhere and I missed it, my apologies.
Also, you mentioned that there is a different process for trying a First Presidency member, found in D&C 107. I can’t find anything about it except verses 82-3, which don’t seems to mention witnesses or trials at all. Perhaps I’m just not seeing it?
@@IBelieveJoseph I drew the comparison because they are similar. Certainly, a legal court is more rigorous, however in a church court you still have the prosecution and defense concept. When I was ward clerk I attended a church court, and I personally had my "court of love" and saw essentially the same thing.
The excommunications in the Expositor's case were a mixture of the 12 and the High Council however this is not the way that it should be. In my video, "The Proper Organization of the Church" I show how the 12 and the stakes have completely different roles for inside Zion and outside of Zion. I know the language of 107:82 is kind of vague, however 107:24 suggest that the 12 in special cases have equal authority to the First Presidency. This seems natural to me to suggest that the 12 should be trying the First Presidency, not a random assortment of 12 random "counselors of the High Priesthood". Could one rogue stake take the entire church down?
Another case is D&C 102:12-14 which describes disciplinary councils and how 6 should be for the person, and 6 should be against. v 18: "In all cases the accuser and the accused shall have a privilege of speaking for themselves before the council, after the evidences are heard and the councilors who are appointed to speak on the case have finished their remarks." This certainly didn't happen because the accused were not even there to begin with and there was no "accuser" so to speak. A judge can't preside at a trial while also being a witness for or against.
It is interesting though because v 20 says that the decision can be vetoed. However, the LDS church certainly doesn't do this today. Today the handbook says the president makes the final decision and the councilors are "invited to sustain" the decision.
So it’s definitely illegal-if you compare it to the modern church and interpret vague language a certain way and draw inferences from other sections and associate it with the procedures of unrelated state law courts. Sure.
@@IBelieveJoseph So you're saying it is illegal if we compare it against the scriptures? I am glad we can agree.
In what world is it okay to excommunicate people when they can say nothing in their defense and are not even present?
In what world is it okay to follow procedures for some people, however abandon them for other, who conveniently are your enemies?
In your mind this is how the church should work? This is exactly how dictatorships work.
You ascribe a negative connotation to the idea that Joseph was referred to as a prophet, priest, and king in his political organization of the Council of 50 in his democratic running for the presidency. Actually, the idea of prophet, priest, and king can have a quite benign interpretation. For example, consider the meaning in the Catholic Church:
The baptized serve as priests through their sacrificial efforts to bring people to God. They serve as prophets through their witness to the truth in word and deed. And they serve as kings in their efforts to lead others-again through word and deed-to use their talents to advance the Kingdom of God (see CCC 1241).
You're stretching things quite a bit. There is only one prophet, priest, and king which is Christ. You can redefine things all day but that doesn't make it true.
If you research the subject, you will find that it is a common sentiment among Christian sects for members to aspire to become a prophet, priest, and king in a saintly sense. I am not making up this definition, it is prevalent viewpoint that is held by many Christians.
@@Jjj53214 ok. Jesus is the culmination of all three. No one else is.
That’s fine. But one cannot automatically conclude that Smith had a devious plan to combine church and state at the national level simply because he used the phraseology or prophet, priest, and king. As already stated, that terminology is prevalent in Christian thought as merely an expression of a Christian’s desire to become devout.
Ummm... he was "terrified about it getting out?" There wasn't anything new that hadn't already been said... all lies that had already been being said and published in other venues.
Then why did he react the way he did? Did he violently destroy the other presses? Do you have anything to discuss about the points themselves?
@@uncorrelatedmormonismSmith and the city council claimed that they destroyed the paper to prevent a riot from occurring.
@@Jjj53214a true prophet would’ve seen his actions would cost him his life.
@@uncorrelatedmormonismthe fact he didn’t violently destroy other presses accusing him of the exact same thing is evidence against your point, not in favor of it. I’m sure you read the expositor one it’s entirety so you’re fully aware, that multiple times in the expositor it calls for war, extermination, and all around violence towards the saints. Many of those involved in its printing made publicly available statements of their desire to unalive smith, 2 mock courts and a well respected non Mormon lawyer, along with a legal trial OUTSIDE of nauvoo presided by a non Mormon judge, all claimed the destruction of the expositor was justified. And yet you rely on Joseph’s indictment in a trial that never ended up taking place (that never should have because that’s definition double jeopardy) to say it was unjustified? The entire trial was just a trap to get Joseph smith vulnerable to unalive him. Oddly enough we have writings from publishers of the expositor previous to the martyr that talk of planning exactly that. But that’s just a coincidence right? Or how law fled the state literally hours before the mob left to Carthage?
Excellent research Patrick. I’m with you. The truth lies in the middle somewhere. I believe Joseph’s own words in the Book of Commandments to “pretend to no other gift.” He would have been better off to heed God’s advice he received through the Urim and Thummim. I still believe Joseph was a good man with good intentions surrounded by good people giving him bad advice. This further cements in my mind that church history is a mess that gets worse with increased attention and the Book of Mormon is a beauty that gets better with attention.
Thanks. Yes church history is a mess. I also think Joseph was a generally good person. I doubt he was intentionally doing anything malicious. Many people of that time had different ethical boundaries than we do today therefore we have to examine people in the time that they lived.
I was having a conversation with someone earlier today who said that a testimony to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is that even though Joseph and the church did all sorts of questionable things, the Book of Mormon still rose above the filth. Truth is eternal and will always rise above the filth.
Your church is a cult that caters to men and money.
Been there....got the hell out!
I am glad that God is helping you in your search for truth. All glory goes to God for his unending love and mercy.
While I do agree with you about the Nauvoo era not being innocent and there being darkness in certain areas, I disagree with most of the rest of your conclusions. I'm sure you are aware that all of the owners of the Nauvoo Expositor were bitter enemies of JSJr and at least half of them had sworn to kill him. You could argue about the accusations back and forth because both sides have plenty to say about the other. However, in a court of law, the evidence against JSJr would not hold up. In fact, any of the Expositor owners could have taken JSJr to court at any time for the crime of polygamy (since it was against the law in every state of the U.S.) if they had any evidence for it. So, to take as your premise that the owners of the Expositor are telling the truth is starting off on a sandy foundation. I'm not suggesting that JSJr is innocent of all charges but you are showing your bias at the outset.
Your conclusion about the High Council decision is incorrect and missing some things. Who was on the High Council in Nauvoo might provide some interesting insights.
- JSJr
- Hyrum Smith
- Young (on a mission)
- John Taylor
- Orson Pratt
- HC Kimball (on a mission)
- Orson Hyde (early adopter of the spiritual wife system)
- Sylvester Emmons
- Benjamin Warrington
- Daniel Spencer
According to William Smith, JSJr's bro, he had visited JSJr and Emma in April 1844 and while at breakfast overheard some of the back and forth about the goings on in Nauvoo at the time. Emma reportedly told JSJr that some of the sisters were reporting to her as RS Pres that Young, Richards, and Taylor were secretly teaching the sisters in Nauvoo doctrines that were going to ruin the church if it wasn't stopped because it was contrary to the laws and rules of the church (The Saints' Herald vol 26, No 8; "The Death of the Two Martyrs" pg 117). It is a proven fact that Kimball, Young and I believe Hyde all had polygamous wives in the early 1840's and that this was kept a strict secret. Richards took a polygamous wife in early 1840's and Taylor also took a polygamous wife before JSJr's death. So, you have half of the high council who are secretly practicing polygamy to which JSJr and Hyrum have publicly denounced and refuted as a practice of the church.
This is important because Emma Smith would later relate that JSJr told her that he did not like the counsel to destroy the Expositor and had told the High Council that if destroying the press was the will of the council that he (JSJr) would be the one held responsible (no one else in the Council would suffer repercussions and it would all fall on him). The High Counsel also sought legal advice from a known lawyer who said that they were within their rights to do what they did. To further add to the idea that destroying the Expositor was not JSJr's preference, William Smith said that Richards and Taylor through "constant importunities" upon JSJr eventually got him to sign the ordinance to destroy the Expositor.
This is more complex than you present and there is evidence to support either claim - JSJr is innocent or guilty. However, as stated above, your bias is a problem in this presentation. The LDS church has lots of problems but the Book of Mormon is a sacred text and JSJr, by all appearances that I've been able to gather, was innocent of polygamy and probably the majority of the crimes and faults he was accused of.
Thank you for the feedback. Church history is a mess and we are only seeing the part that has been preserved. This of course is not the full picture.
1. Joseph was indicted on the charge of perjury, fornication, and polygamy. He appeared before the court in May 1844, however the trial was postponed. He happened to die before the trial could happen. I really wish it would have happened as we would have a lot more clarity.
2. William Law and others were excommunicated without a trial and without an ability to present evidence in their defense. This is unjust and against the laws of the church.
3. JS may have caved it is impossible to know. However he was the one to sign the order, he requested maximum destruction, he sent the order to the legion, he is the one saying he wanted the Expositor gone.
This also is using later recollections to justify Joseph's actions. Why should we trust those recollections and not others? Wouldn't people naturally want to defend Joseph when they saw what happened?
I know everyone loves to focus on polygamy however I think that is just a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I agree it is messy. William Law was excommunicated because by his own mouth he admitted to adultery and in the presence of several church leaders, not just JSJr. The trial was postponed because one of the Laws (I think it was) who brought the suit did not show up but JSJr was present. JSJr's legal counsel told him it was in his best interest to have the trial because they had nothing to hide so they went forward with it rather than seeking to have it dismissed.
The trials of the Temple Lot and (another trial that I can't remember the name of) both proved that claims made by the Utah Church that JSJr started and practiced polygamy was unfounded and likely not true. The accusation of polygamy is important in the case of JSJr because all of this comes down to character. As I said in my previous post, there is evidence to support either claim (JSJr was innocent of most of the wrongs accused or he was guilty) and therefore, the character of the accused needs to be taken into account, just like in a trial. Emma was always spoken of by everyone (except Brigham Young) as being one of the most upright people they ever knew. Depending on who you ask, JSJr was also said to be the same. Is he a villain, a fallen prophet or is it possible he was actually a very good man that was surrounded by corrupt and reproachable church leaders.
Brigham Young was very likely committing adultery on at least two of his missions (he specifically requested to not have any companions with him) with eye witness accounts to prove it. Orson Hyde was an adulterer, Richards was an adulterer, Kimball, etc. These men used the practice of polygamy to hide their unrighteous desires and it speaks against their character. Aside from that, read and look into the works and words of Brigham Young and it doesn't take long to know what kind of man he was - you know his character.
@@duncansh81 The illegal excommunication, in the night with no notice and no defense, was for William, Wilson, Jane, and RD Foster. All people Joseph didn't like.
The Temple Lot case was 50 years later and not focused on polygamy. I actually helped transcribe all the records.
If we go on accusations alone then Joseph is also guilty. This is why accusations are such a dangerous game to play.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism From things I've read, JSJr was a very forgiving person and would give people multiple chances to repent and as long as they kept on repenting, he would suffer them (as it says in BoM). JC Bennet being the prime example of that. Bennet was very repentant while in the meeting where he was confronted and agreed to sign an affidavit stating he was guilty and JSJr had never taught him such things. After leaving Nauvoo Bennet began his campaign to harangue and slander JSJr and the other saints (some of them were definitely guilty of some of the crimes he was alleging). He had church discipline done often quietly so that no one knew much aside from those who had to know. Could you provide meeting minutes for the excommunications you cited? As things got worse in Nauvoo he realized he needed to be more public about who was sinning.
I have read quite a bit about the temple lot case and I know it wasn't about polygamy but it quickly became an important focus for good reason. I assume you know that as well but left that out of your comment.
Let me amend my final point from last comment. Both sides have points against Joseph's character. Let's use the scriptures as the way to judge - did Joseph bring forth good fruit or evil fruit? BoM was good fruit, so much of the actual things that JSJr taught and did were good fruits. This is why getting to the bottom of where Utah church polygamy came from is so important. Polygamy was not good fruit, despite what church leaders at the time taught. Did it come from JSJr or Brigham Young and the other adulterous church leaders at that time?
@@duncansh81 The meeting minutes are linked in the article.
You should read the entire temple lot case, all the records are linked on my blog. I assembled a huge team and we transcribed them a year ago or so.
The Book of Mormon is good fruit. However, God told Joseph that he was to have no other gift. I think most of what we claim as truth in the LDS church is a deviation from truth. The problem with modern Mormonism though is the belief that if Joseph was a prophet then everything he did, or everything the LDS church does is true. This doesn't logically follow.
@uncorrelatedmormonism It just seems GLOOMY on your side of the argument. You could spend time looking for evidence in support of Joseph... do you really think M. Stone is missing or dismissing arguments?
Truth is kind of gloomy when you really look at it.
Adam and Eve lost the Garden because of disobedience.
Israel lost their place because of disobedience.
The Nephites lost their place because of disobedience.
The early Christian church lost their place because of disobedience.
The early Mormon church lost their place because of disobedience.
The people today are largely going to be destroyed because of disobedience.
God was serious in Book of Commandments 4. We are either his people and enjoy his blessings, or we are Satan's people and enjoy his blessings.
William Law is the hero of Nauvoo
I really respect anyone that can stand before a beast without fear. 😊
Good research and work on this video. Unveils much despite the fact that it may not be "the whole" story considering all the possabilites. Making a "government" upon the earth where a people can practice their religion, is in no way beyond good intent nor beyond accomplishing. We may oppose this secondary temporal style of government but people are also trained to oppose it because of the power it wields.....ie see BY and his work. This also in no way is an obvious picture of what JS envisioned...a temporal government where the pure in heart flourish. The coming forth of such a government is in no way based on the leader of such but is dependent on the people in the group whom....as we know from history, made many errors. "The Law" is always the ultimate tool to dispense with prophets ie see Yeshua and his life.
Thanks. History is very complicated. I don't think we will know the full story until God tells us himself.
You seem to have become a Joseph Smith basher lately. The expositor is is NOT the gospel and you seem to think everything in it was 100% true, short lived as it was. (Just like CNN is is true) You say you have no problem against alcohol but use it to bash Joseph AGAIN. But Jesus turned water into wine, and LOTS of it. You don't think people drank too much at that wedding? Are you going to bash Jesus over that too? Sure Joseph made mistakes (lots) and he and his followers pushed things too far (popularity will do that but it doesn't take away that his mission and maybe it was his only mission, was to bring forth and translate the Book of Mormon.) AND Joseph himself states that he is fallen prophet but seriously you are starting to dedicate video after video to bashing him. You obviously have a problem since being ex-ed. (Joseph didn't get you ex-ed. The LDS church ex-ed you, and that church is NOTHING like the church at the beginning with Joseph and NOTHING at all like the gospel of Christ as found in the Book of Mormon.) Are you going to start bashing the book of Mormon next?
You really don't need to make this emotional.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism You are the one who is emotional. Bitterness is an emotion and you are full to the brim.
@@user-ql2id3ml3i Thank you so much. I would love to engage in a logical discussion if you want.
I have liked many of your presentations in the past but unfortunately I believe you have gone off the rails here. I certainly feel Joseph and the members of the church were making some serious mistakes however I do not believe that Joseph was taking advantage of young, old or any other women as you indicated. Polygamy was not a practice of Joseph or Hyrum. You are grossly mistaken. I guess I will have to move on to another channel.
Thanks for your thoughts. I never actually said Joseph did that. Did you actually have any thoughts about anything presented here?
@uncorrelatedmormonism question I assume your Mormons becouse talk about it lot my question is what happen after death by Mormons beliefs becouse I heard from ex Mormon that Mormon believe in like multiple place you can go after death like realms and she say there place you can be at and angel will come preach gospel and give second change to accept gospel is these true can you explain what everywhere a soul can go after death?
I don’t understand when you say that JS never engaged in polygamy and even polyandry. The church vaults are just crawling with evidence that he did…female member journals elicit this fact wholeheartedly.
@jamesisaacson6379 As one who was a Mormon until recently, I can explain that to you. Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible, so everything that it teaches about Heaven and Hell are understood by Mormons, as well. The Book of Mormon talks about this, too. In Alma 40: 11-14, a man named Alma is explaining this concept to one of his sons. He says:
"Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection - Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.
"And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.
"And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil - for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house-and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
"Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection."
So that's not that different from what most Christians believe, I think. You see, just like how Christians believe in everything that Jews believe (the Old Testament), plus more (the New Testament), Mormons believe in everything that Christians believe (the Bible), plus more (The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and all the words of their "modern prophets"). So their belief of the afterlife is pretty much the same as most Christians, but with additional information with it.
The "multiple heavens" thing is not between death and the resurrection, but only after the resurrection. Mormons believe that the journey we're all on started in the spirit world, then we were born here, then we'll die and go back to the spirit world (some to a heavenly area of the spirit world, and others to a not-so-nice area), then we'll all be resurrected, then we'll all be gathered in front of the Father and the Son to be judged one final time for our sins (and Jesus will intercede for all of us who put their trust in Him), and *then* we each go to different "kingdoms of glory": The Telestial Kingdom, where wicked people go (murderers, adulterers, thieves, liars, etc), which will still be pretty nice, since they at least fought on the right side of the war against Satan before the Earth was created; the Terrestrial Kingdom, where those who believed in Jesus, but weren't very valiant, or refused to believe in Jesus (during their life or afterward), and yet were some pretty good people; and the Celestial Kingdom, where all those who fully trusted in Jesus Christ go, and where we can inherit everything the Father has. There's also "Outer Darkness", where Satan and all his followers will go forever.
There's a lot more that Mormons believe, like how you need to also make and keep certain covenants in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom, and that the Celestial Kingdom has 3 more levels inside of it. Read and study it all for yourself, so you can come to an informed decision as to whether you believe it's true or false.
@@steveambrose2349 everything Joseph taught publicly and in private, was against Polygamy, Spiritual wifery, and sometimes even specifically “illicit intercourse“. He and Hyrum were both 100% against it. They lived against it and they died against it. Documents were changed after their death to make it look like they were“practicing it secretly“. Brigham Young tried to make polygamy look like Joseph‘s idea even though Joseph was 100% against it all the days of his life. The scriptures preach against polygamy. Brigham was a sorry, no good evil man, and was never a prophet of God, even though current LDS members believe that he was. God never called him to be a prophet. Ever. Brigham was one of the seven men who gathered fragments of the membership of Joseph’s restored church after he was murdered. Brigham took a few thousand people west to the Salt Lake Valley, but over 10,000 more stayed behind. None of the Smiths followed Brigham Young because they did not trust him. A judge ruled against Brigham Young and would not let him have any of the LDS buildings or property. The judge ruled that Brigham‘s church was not the same as Joseph’s church. When members wouldn’t accept something Brigham usually claimed that it was a Doctrine taught to him by Joseph. People trusted Joseph much more than they trusted Brigham Young.
It’s true that LDS church archives are full of testimonies, eye witnesses, written affidavits, etc. supporting Joseph as a polygamist but it’s all bullshit. Brigham had people falsify affidavits to help him win a court case against Emma. The judge ruled completely against him because he knew everything was phony. The LDS corporation today is simply a continuation of what Brigham Young started after the death of the prophet Joseph Smith. Joseph’s Church and Brigham‘s church are two completely different churches. Brigham taught his own doctrines. Brigham practice polygamy secretly many years before Joseph was murdered. In fact, Joseph was murdered specifically because of his nonacceptance of polygamy. The stories of Joseph’s Polygamy, polyandry, teenage girl cohesion, are all rumors falsely imposed against Joseph.
Joseph was disgusted by the abomination of polygamy, Joseph never taught that blacks were lesser people, Joseph never taught that Adam was God, Joseph, never taught that people inhabited, the moon, and Joseph never taught blood atonement, Brigham’s man-made doctrine where people had to pay for their own sins with their own blood. Joseph never was a mason, and he never wore garments. Everything I just mentioned is the product of Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith.
Go back EVERYONE and listen to Michelle Stone on this.
Don't turn to the dark side AGAINST Joseph. Believe
In her take on this she focuses very little on the expositor itself and mainly attacks the character of William Law and others.
If what I have said is wrong though, then shouldn't you be able to tell me how without ignoring what I say?
@uncorrelatedmormonism I will go back and relisten to this AND read the Expositor.
Bro. It's almost totally all or nothing for Joseph Smith. What are YOU trying to prove here, that he was a pedophile? That he excommunicated without a hearing? Many documents from 1842 on had pages intentionally left blank in places so ther could be adjusted later. Michelle goes over many of these things adnauseam
It is not all or nothing. Joseph was a human and had ups and downs like everyone else. Sometimes I have been very close to God and other times not as much.
There were blank sections in journals for all sorts of reasons. I doubt it was so they could insert polygamy everywhere. If you look at the journals there are many blank sections and only a handful were ever changed. In my personal journal I literally also left blank sections because I knew I was going to come back and write about something later.
We really need to think of things in context and not in a vacuum.
go and listen to what Lindsay Hansen Park (Year Of Polygamy podcast) has to say about the "Joseph Fought Polygamy" hogwash. Michelle responded to that in a video which was a 3 hour whinefest, in which she made ad hominen attacks against Lindsay.
@@dreibel I have noticed that she uses personal attacks instead of conceding that she could be wrong about something.
Uncorrelated Mormonism, I have always enjoyed your research, but this one baffles me. It makes no sense at all. This is not what happened with the Expositor at all. This is not truly what happened. You make Joseph look like a bad guy. Joseph was a great man of amazing integrity.
I can understand the reaction. I also don't want to make Joseph look like a bad guy. However, I believe when the church was rejected, and Joseph's eyes were covered then he became a 19th century man just like everyone else.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism
What information from a source that is not from Joseph or under his control that he was ever more than just a normal man? All sources outside of the LDS church indicates that Smith was a career con man who took advantage of people by telling them he could find treasure by looking at rocks in his hat. It is only the testimony of Smith and those who he had under his control that indicates that he was anything other than a criminal.
Your video here supports that Jospeh was never anything other an a con man and a career criminal, but you seem to what to ignore the facts and believe for a very short moment in time, Joseph was used by God to do something exceptional and the it all went off the rails.
If what you say is true, then it makes it seem that the Mormon God is not much of a god at all seeing that a simple man was able to overcome his plan to re-establish his church on Earth. Jesus told Peter and the other disciples that He (Jesus) would establish His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, but you are saying that Satan was able to prevail. So what is the correct story? Was Jesus right, and Joseph was just a con man who fooled a bunch of people, or is God weak and ineffective in stopping Satan?
This is true. There are many contemporary sources suggesting that Joseph was not the personal his followers claimed he was.
This is similar to a modern day prophet in remnant mormonism today. Inside the group people have very good things to say about him. Outside the group people have much less nice things to say.
I do think though that the assumption your making is fundamentally flawed. God doesn't have to work with a perfect person in order to accomplish his work. Through Moses he church went off the rails almost right away. Through Christ his teachings went off the rails. Through Joseph his teachings went off the rails. This is human nature.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism
The key for a prophet who went off the rails was repentance, if anything Smith becomes progressively worse. This has nothing to do with being perfect this has to do with Smart being everything that Jesus and the Apostles warned about false prophets and teachers.
@@darinbracy8433 Yes repentance is key. I think it is also important to remember that Deuteronomy 13 says a true prophet can have false visions. They can probably also have true visions after this once they repent. In Christianity we like to say "true prophet" or "false prophet". However we probably should say "true vision" or "false vision" instead.
When you say that the Church was "turned over to the devil," you lost me. Your subtle but apparent attack on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is disgusting.
Do you believe God? This is exactly what he said would happen in Book of Commandments 4 (1833). Joseph removed this in the 1835 reprint.
"If the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them ... And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto satan"
www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/14
I would encourage you to watch my video "Turned over to Satan". It shows how the church lost the fulness and was turned over to Satan.